Oral Answers to Questions

WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Health Trusts

Jon Owen Jones: What discussions he has had with National Assembly for Wales Ministers concerning the effects of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 on the publication of data on individual health trusts in Wales.

Don Touhig: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have had no discussions with Assembly Ministers on the Freedom of Information Act in relation to the publication of data on individual health trusts, but I rather suspect that my hon. Friend has.

Jon Owen Jones: My constituent, Kelly Harris, contracted MRSA in the Heath hospital two months ago. Unfortunately, she has since had a toe amputated. For the past couple of months she has been trying to obtain information about her medical records, which the hospital has been reluctant to disclose. She is also trying to obtain information about the number of MRSA cases in the hospital, which she would have the right to do were it an English hospital. Does the Minister agree that not disclosing such information risks people believing either that Welsh people are too ignorant to interpret the data or that someone has something to hide?

Don Touhig: I express my sympathy for the ill health of my hon. Friend's constituent. The national public health service gathers and publishes data on health care-associated infections, including MRSA, in Wales. The information is not published in the same way as it is in England—it is anonymised—and it is for each individual trust to decide whether it wants to publish it. Given my hon. Friend's views, which other hon. Members will share, I will ensure that his comments are brought to the attention of my Assembly colleague, the Minister for Health and Social Services.

Bill Wiggin: I am glad that the Minister takes this matter seriously. Last year, NHS trust code D had 119 cases of MRSA. This year, it is estimated that 600 people will die from hospital-acquired infections in Wales. Even the Prime Minister has recognised that this is a problem. Keith Callaway of Bettws has twice suffered MRSA infections in hospital, and has lost his leg and suffered kidney failure and a cardiac arrest as a result. He said in The Western Mail that he is
	"very bitter that this information is withheld"
	and that he
	"wholeheartedly believes that it should be made public."
	I hope that the Minister will do a bit more than he outlined to make that happen.

Don Touhig: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's point. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), his view is shared by Members on both sides of the House and I will ensure that it is brought to the attention of the health Minister in the Assembly.

Bill Wiggin: I am glad that the Minister will bring the issue to his colleague's attention. However, the Assembly could do a great deal more. In 1996, there were 152 cases of MRSA; by 2001, there were 342. Last year, the figure reached 481. We need more than just pretty words from the Minister.

Don Touhig: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks that I am just uttering pretty words, because I do take the matter seriously. I remind him that when his party was in power no figures on MRSA were published whatsoever.

Roger Williams: My colleague Kirsty Williams, the Assembly Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, has been instrumental in bringing this situation to light in the Assembly. Does the Minister agree that unless we have accurate figures about the prevalence of MRSA in Welsh hospitals we are unable properly to scrutinise the policies that are put forward by the Assembly to address the problem?

Don Touhig: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point. I am sure that he would agree that the Welsh Assembly is very transparent on a whole range of matters as regards giving information to the public. I share the concerns that hon. Members have expressed. I repeat that I will ensure that they are brought to the attention of the Assembly Minister.

Barnett Formula

David Taylor: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales on the impact of the Barnett formula on regeneration.

Kevin Brennan: What consultations he has had with the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales on the effect of the Barnett formula on public expenditure in Wales in the next financial year.

Peter Hain: I regularly meet the Assembly First Minister, and regeneration in Wales is one of the topics that we frequently discuss.

David Taylor: When I recently drove to Holyhead via the A55 along the north Wales coast, I was hugely impressed by the scale of regeneration since my last visit a decade ago. The Labour Government and the Labour Assembly have much of which to be proud. However, will the Secretary of State acknowledge the role of the generous Barnett formula in all this? Should not national grant distribution be more needs-based so that my own region does not lose out; or does the English midlands need to be categorised as Powys, East before we get a fairer deal?

Peter Hain: That is an interesting proposition—I look forward to adding Red Leicester to the list of fine Welsh cheeses. If my hon. Friend wants to apply to the Gorsedd of the Bards, I shall put in a good word for him.
	The Barnett formula is a population-based share that changes according to comparable spending in England, including in Leicestershire. It is therefore triggered by what goes on in England. Wales has a lot of catching up to do. We are making great progress, but gross domestic product per head remains 78.8 per cent. of the United Kingdom average. That is why the additional funding that the Labour Government are investing, compared with the miserable Tory record, is so important.

Kevin Brennan: I am sure that the soon-to-be defunct Wales Tourist Board will be glad to make a film about North-West Leicestershire called "Last Quango in Powys". Is not the fact that we shall have Barnett-plus in Wales for the next few years a warning to those who appear to believe that the answer to every problem in Wales is to throw the baby out with the Barnett formula?

Peter Hain: Yes—I assume that my hon. Friend is talking about the nationalists, who have consistently attacked the Barnett formula. That is not surprising as they want Wales to be cut off from the rest of the United Kingdom. They ignore the fact that, uniquely, we have £555 million over the next three years over and above the Barnett formula for objective 1 funding. Yesterday, Sue Essex, the Minister for Finance, Local Government and Public Services in the Assembly, announced that some £13 million from the business rates incentive scheme would go towards reducing the impact of council tax rises, as part of an increase of £60 million-odd in the coming years. That is proof that the Labour Government are genuinely delivering for Wales all the way.

Lembit �pik: As the representative for Powys, Central, may I tell the would-be Member for Powys, East that yesterday the Assembly Finance Minister announced a Welsh local government settlement? On all independent projections, that will mean a big increase in council tax as a result of the poor settlement for local government in the Budget, due to the inadequate formulation of the Barnett formula. Has the Secretary of State any plans to address that? If so, when can we expect a reformulation so that local government in Wales is not squeezed, although it has been so far?

Peter Hain: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the additional money that the Labour Government in the Welsh Assembly announced yesterday to ensure that council tax rises are kept to a minimum, as they were this year. What would happen if the Liberal Democrat policy of massive hikes in income tax to replace the council tax were introduced? That would mean hard-working people, from police officers to nurses and teachers, paying a huge additional burden of income tax. That is the mad Lib Dem policy.

Nigel Evans: Not only the additional money but how it is spent is important to Wales. Will the Secretary of State hold discussions with the First Minister to ensure that more Barnett formula money is spent on attracting manufacturing investment into Wales, because thousands of jobs have been lost since the Government came to power? Is he not ashamed that there are fewer manufacturing jobs in Wales now than in 1997?

Peter Hain: It is true that manufacturing has contracted in Wales as it has throughout the industrialised, modern world. It has happened elsewhere in Europe, in the United States and other places. The hon. Gentleman does not point out that employment in Wales is at record levels compared with a massive loss of manufacturingaround 100,000and huge unemployment under Tory policies. Compared with that, we have a good record. We are doing more and more and the Welsh economy is strengthening week by week.

Betty Williams: My right hon. Friend will recognise the scene that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) described of travelling along the A55, and especially of the regeneration that has occurred in my constituency of Conwy since 1997. However, will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity to discuss with the First Minister and other agencies in Wales the effectiveness of flood defences, given the serious flooding in the past two weeks? Businesses and householders were badly affected, especially in the Bangor area.

Peter Hain: I am aware of the problems of flooding in the Bangor area and throughout Wales, including in my constituency. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's concerns are brought to the attention of the First Minister and therefore the Welsh Assembly Government. However, as she acknowledged, there has been record investment and more and more jobs in her constituency and along the north Wales corridor, to which my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) also referred. That is because Wales is working under Labour, compared with a Tory record of mass unemployment, mass bankruptcies and business collapse.

New Deal

Jackie Lawrence: What recent discussions he has had with his Cabinet colleagues on the number of people who have benefited from the new deal in Wales.

Peter Hain: I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues. The Government's new deal has helped to reduce unemployment in Wales, with more than 70,000 people finding work through the programme.

Jackie Lawrence: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that there is no better example of the successful way in which Wales is working than the take-up of the new deal for lone parents? Will he tell the House what he feels the impact would be of the Tories' plans to scrap the new deal, particularly on lone parents in areas such as mine whose lives have been dramatically

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State may answer questions only on matters for which he is responsible.

Peter Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend that the new deal has been a fantastic success right across Wales, with 35,000 young people, 19,900 lone parents and 7,400 disabled people securing new jobs through it. That is why it would be absolutely catastrophic if a policy were adopted to abolish the new deal, as has been advocated by the Tories and the Liberal Democrats.

Alan Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that thanks to the new deal, to successful education and training policies, to a business-friendly strategy by Newport city council and to the Government's good management of the economy, unemployment in Newport has halved since 1997[Interruption.]

Peter Hain: Yes is the answer to that question! May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's work as the Member representing Newport, East? I want to acknowledge that it will be a loss for the House when he stands down at the end of this Parliament.
	We have had a fantastic record of job creation under Labour, with both the Assembly and our Westminster Government working in partnership. Unemployment in Wales is now at its lowest for nearly 30 years, and at half the level that we inherited from the last Conservative Government.

Antisocial Behaviour

Ian Lucas: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on tackling antisocial behaviour in Wales.

Don Touhig: My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on matters affecting Wales. Over the past year, the police, community safety partnerships and others in Wales have increasingly used the wide range of powers put in place to tackle antisocial behaviour. Last week, Cardiff, Newport and Swansea were included among 50 new antisocial behaviour action areas.

Ian Lucas: One of the most successful innovations associated with antisocial behaviour is the introduction of alley gating, which has been introduced in Caia Park in my constituency and is very popular with my constituents. Unfortunately, however, the provisions introduced by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 have not yet been implemented by the Assembly, which is preventing a more rapid introduction of alley gating in Caia Park. Will my hon. Friend have discussions with the National Assembly for Wales to establish what steps it intends to take to introduce this legislation in Wales as soon as possible?

Don Touhig: I am aware of the success of the alley gating project in Caia Park in my hon. Friend's constituency[Interruption.] I can say that with a straight face. Indeed, 250,000 has been set aside by my colleagues in the Assembly for such projects. I am also aware of my hon. Friend's concerns about the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. It is a matter for the Assembly to decide on the commencement of the relevant orders under that Act, but I will take up the points that he has raised with my colleague Minister there.

Simon Thomas: In the week in which a 12-year-old girl in my constituency admitted in court that she had provided the drugs that killed a schoolboy, may I ask the Minister what steps are being taken under the antisocial behaviour initiatives to deal with illegal drug dealing on our streets? In particular, will he tell me what is going to come out of the Prime Minister's announcement last week about empowering local communities to take more steps in regard to the people whom they can identify as problematic in their area? What detailed discussions are going on with National Assembly Ministers about implementing these proposals?

Don Touhig: I very much regret the incident to which the hon. Gentleman referred. My colleagues in the Assembly have a proactive policy of funding and supporting drug agencies. Indeed, I spent a day with one agency, as a fly on the wall, observing the good work that it was doing. It is also important that investment is going into education, so that young people can be made aware of the dangers of using drugs. They are an awful blight on our society, both in the hon. Gentleman's rural constituency and in my urban constituency.
	We must work together as community partnerships because this problem will not be solved by the police alone. The community has to be proactive. There was an incident in my constituency in which a drug pusher was trying to sell drugs to children in primary schools and the local community rose up, turned up outside the school and phoned the police to give them the person's car number. We must be vigilant in all that we do. We are working closely with our colleagues in this regard, and they have a good record to date.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The antisocial behaviour measures that have been implemented throughout Wales have been welcomed by my constituents, although they would like more of them to be used in my area. Does my hon. Friend agree that equally important is having eyes and ears on the ground to implement these measures? In addition to the extra policing and the community support officers, will he join me in actively encouraging local authorities, including my own in Bridgend, to consider the use of community or neighbourhood wardens?

Don Touhig: My hon. Friend is right to refer to the effects of the antisocial behaviour orders. Indeed, 114 have been issued in Wales. I take his point about the community wardens, and in my own borough the new Labour-controlled council is introducing a scheme. What is important is that that supplements and supports the work being done by the police. It encourages the community to participate in combating antisocial behaviour problems. Often, wardens act as professional witnesses when the community or the public are afraid to come forward, perhaps as a result of witnessing antisocial behaviour. I commend the schemes and I hope that authorities across Wales look seriously at the work being done in Newport and the work we are now doing in Caerphilly.

Bill Wiggin: For ASBOs to work, people with them must not breach them. When I asked how many of the 114 issued in Wales had been breached, the Minister did not give me the figures for 2003. Bearing it in mind that it is now November 2004, why was that?

Don Touhig: I knew that I should have signed off that question yesterday. This is the latest information I have that I can give the hon. Gentleman. When there are further figures available and if he asks the question again, I will give him the most up-to-date figures I have.

Stephen Pound: I am sure that my hon. Friend will have been as delighted as I was to witness the Damascene conversion of the Liberal Democrats, who now support that legislation. What can be done to encourage those who put political prejudice over the interests of the nation to see the error of their ways? How can he reach out to the recalcitrant and the opportunistic?

Don Touhig: There are many potential St. Pauls on the other side of the House. Indeed, the Liberal Democrat record is not a good one. Frankly, they have opposed at every level in the House legislation that we have put through to combat antisocial behaviour, yet [Interruption.] Oh yes they haveyet in local constituencies they campaign on issues of antisocial behaviour. They want to deprive the police and local authorities of powers

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think my mistake was to call the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound).

Julie Morgan: I very much welcome the fact that Cardiff has been chosen as one of the pilot areas to tackle antisocial behaviour. What does that means for the people in my constituency of Cardiff, North and, in particular, for the residents of Fishguard road in Llanishen, who are suffering due to rowdiness, graffiti and drunkenness from a very small group of young people?

Don Touhig: I would hope that the resources that will now go into the antisocial behaviour action areas in Cardiff, Newport and Swansea will improve the situation to which my hon. Friend refers. Resources and manpower will now be committed to tackling serious problems of antisocial behaviour in those communities. A minority of people are involved in such activity in our communities across Wales and it is important that the community work together with the police, the local authorities and other agencies to tackle it. It will not disappear overnight, but if we work together in partnership we will start to see the tide turn.

Police Numbers

Dai Havard: What discussions he has had with his Cabinet colleagues on the latest figures for police numbers in Wales.

Don Touhig: My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on matters affecting Wales. In Wales, police strength at 31 August 2004 was at 7,414, which is an increase of more than 12 per cent. since 1997.

Dai Havard: There has been significant improvement in police numbers, community support officers, the extension of community wardens in my constituency, the reopening of local police stations and so on, as well as a significant improvement in drug interdictionall of which has all been possible because of extra funding. However, I do not want that episodic investment to remain exactly that and not be sustained. What will my hon. Friend do to ensure sustainability of that funding so that those improvements continue?

Don Touhig: Funding the police service remains a top priority of this Government. In 200405, total provision for policing in England and Wales was more than 10 billion: an increase of 4.2 per cent. Funding for the police service in England and Wales has increased by more than 30 per cent., or 2.3 billion, over the past four years. The Government will continue to put in the resources, unlike the Conservative party, with its Mickey Mouse fantasy figures, which wants to cut 1.6 billion from the Home Office budget and spend 1.3 billion more on police. Its figures do not add up.

Elfyn Llwyd: Yesterday, the Minister for Finance, Local Government and Public Services in Wales announced a 5 per cent. increase in funding for local authorities in Wales. On closer inspection, that turned out to be 4.8 per cent. Interestingly, however, the average for north Wales authorities is 3.8 per cent. Given that the North Wales police authority requires 7.4 per cent. to meet its commitments, will the Minister ensure that there will be a generous and substantial police grant to avoid substantial policing cuts and/or huge hikes in council tax?

Don Touhig: I am aware of the statement made by my Assembly colleague the Minister for Finance, Local Government and Public Services yesterday. The settlement is very good and should be welcomed across Wales. It confirms the commitment of this Government and our partners in the Assembly to invest in public services. Clearly, the funding of the police service is important, and we can be proud of our record. Certainly, as we move towards the next settlement, the voice of Wales will be made clear by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales in Cabinet and in bilateral discussions with ministerial colleagues. We are determined that the police service in Wales will have all the adequate resources that it needs.

Minimum Wage

Huw Edwards: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the impact in Wales of the recent changes in the minimum wage.

Peter Hain: Tens of thousands of low-paid workers stand to benefit from the increases to the national minimum wage in Wales in October, including for the first time young workers aged 16 and 17 who will receive 3 an hour.

Huw Edwards: Will my right hon. Friend tell his Cabinet colleagues that as a result of the national minimum wage, the recent increase and the extension of the minimum wage to 16 and 17-year-olds, Wales is no longer known as the land of low pay? Does he agree that shop assistants, catering staff and those who work in care homes will always remember that the minimum wage was introduced by this Government and opposed by the Conservative party at every stage?

Peter Hain: Certainly, that will be one of the points on which we campaign in Wales over the coming months. Labour introduced the minimum wage, Labour will increase[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. It is far too noisy, and too many conversations are going on.

Peter Hain: Labour introduced the minimum wage, and we will continue to increase it in line with recommendations from the Low Pay Commission. At the same time, contrary to all the scare stories of the Tories, employment has increased in Wales to record levels, business activity is up and the economy is stronger, all with the minimum wage underpinning wages so that decent social standards apply.

Michael Fabricant: Is the Secretary of State aware that the John Lewis Partnership, which is about to open a department store in Cardiff, has announced that the new national minimum wage rates will reduce the number of staff that it can employ? What does that mean for employment in Wales?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman's leader, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), said that 1 million jobs would be lost if we introduced the minimum wage: exactly the same scare stories that the hon. Gentleman is now repeating in respect of John Lewis in Cardiff.

Albert Owen: The introduction of the national minimum wage directly benefited more than 2,000 families in my constituency and, importantly, indirectly the business community in Ynys Mn. Will my right hon. Friend join me, and the Plaid Cymru strategist Eurfyl ap Gwilym in his comments in a leaked draft of the Plaid Cymru manifesto, in welcoming the beneficial effects of the minimum wage in Wales? Does he agree that the additional resources that are put into the minimum wage, and its extension to 16 and 17-year-olds, will further benefit economies across Wales?

Peter Hain: First, I acknowledge my hon. Friend's excellent work in his constituency in promoting the minimum wage and helping people to get off benefits. That is the pointsince the Labour Government came to power, we have seen 101,000 more people in jobs in Wales. The minimum wage alongside that encourages people to go into work, as it makes work pay and rewards people to a decent extent.

Welsh Language

Hywel Williams: What discussions he has had regarding a new Welsh Language Act.

Peter Hain: The Government continue to be supportive of the Welsh language. The Home Office recently announced that Welsh will be included on the first page of new passports issued to people in Wales from around the end of next year

Hywel Williams: Irrespective of the many complaints that I, among other Members, receive about Welsh language provision, when does the Secretary of State think it would be proper for the Government to review the workings of the Welsh Language Act 1993this Government, that is, rather than the Cardiff Government?

Peter Hain: I am proud of our record in promoting the Welsh language. More people are learning and speaking Welsh than has been the case for generations. I see that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that.   Rhodri Williams, the former chairman of the Welsh Language Board, has rejected calls for a new Welsh Language Act. He said:
	We have not supported calls for the new Welsh Language Act. We believe it is through persuasion that we can get companies to use the language. We can work together. The Welsh language is now healthier and in a better state than it has been for a very long time.
	I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that as well.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

David Wright: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 3 November.

Tony Blair: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
	I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending our warmest congratulations to President Karzai of Afghanistan. It was the first ever election for the Afghan people and a remarkable tribute to them and to the power of democracy. Like everyone else, I await the outcome of the other presidential election with interest.

David Wright: I can say with some confidence that I am sure the people of Telford, Pennsylvania will have voted for John Kerry last night. Unfortunately, most of their countrymen did not do the same. When my right hon. Friend calls President Bush in the next few hours to congratulate him, will he push him very hard on the middle east peace process?

Tony Blair: I meant what I said a moment ago. We must await the outcome of the presidential election in the United States. I can tell my hon. Friend, however, that I believe that progress in the middle east, the democracy that now exists in Afghanistan and the democracy that is to come, I hope, in Iraqthose three things togetherwould be the single most significant contribution we could make to the reduction of terrorism and of the power of terrorists to recruit to their cause in the world. I assure my hon. Friend that I will do everything I possibly can to work with the President of the United States to secure that progress in the middle east.

Michael Howard: Has the Department for Culture, Media and Sport had discussions with foreign casino operators about relaxing the money-laundering rules?

Tony Blair: I am sure that the Department has had discussions with everyone to do with the Gambling Bill, and I am sure that that is absolutely normal. It is what the Department would expect to do. As far as I am aware, there has been no discussion about how it will reduce taxes for casino owners or others. I also think that we should be able to discuss the rights and wrongs of the Bill without hearing utterly absurd allegations of interference with the public interest.

Michael Howard: We should indeed, but we should also know whether such discussions have taken place. I am surprised that the Prime Minister did not answer that question. It is something that he should have known, given the widespread concern expressed by the police and others about the effects of the Gambling Bill on money laundering and organised crime.
	I have here an email from a senior official at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to the operators of the biggest casino in Las Vegas. It begins, helpfully,
	Hello all. I am about to head out of the office until Sep 9th now so could I encourage you all not to send in letters for a bit.
	It goes on:
	For our work on Money Laundering directive No. 3, still interested in seeing estimates as to what the transactional limit would be. Also interested in any other material you feel we should see about this.
	Does the Prime Minister accept that the Department has held discussions with the casino operators about relaxing the rules on money laundering?

Tony Blair: I have not seen that particular emailof course I have notbut if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to suggest that the DCMS has had corrupt conversations with people[Hon. Members: Yes.] It is utterly absurd. We have been conducting this consultation process on the Gambling Bill for several years. We had an independent report from Sir Alan Budd, and then two bouts of legislative scrutiny. We have taken the utmost care to try to get this regime right. Having initially supported all this, the Conservativeswith their usual lame opportunismcame along a few weeks ago when they realised that a media campaign was on, and tried to create scare stories. Even now, I suppose that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to make accusations of corruption. I really think that that is pretty shoddy.

Michael Howard: As usual, the Prime Minister has answered a question that I did not ask and failed to answer the question that I did ask. I ask him now to accept that the Government, and the DCMS in particular, have had discussions with foreign casino operators on relaxing the rules on money laundering. On Monday, these allegations were put to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. She said that they were untrue. She went on to say:
	Discussions on the money laundering directive are a matter for the Treasury.[Official Report, 1 November 2004; Vol. 426, c. 51.]
	Is it not clear that what she told this House on Monday was completely wrong?

Tony Blair: I do not think that that is clear at all; actually, it is not clear from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman read out from the email a moment or two ago. Of course there will be discussions with casino operatorsand, indeed, with everybodyabout the Bill's impact, but money laundering issues are, as my right hon. Friend said, a matter for the Treasury; that is absolutely clear. But what is the right hon. and learned Gentleman actually suggesting? Is he suggestingif so, he might as well say it openlythat there have been corrupt discussions involving casino operators in order that we relax the rules on money laundering to let them launder money? It really is a completely absurd allegation.
	The fact is that, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman well knows, 90 per cent. of this Bill is about regulating gambling better. It is true that we are allowing regional casinos to operate and removing the restriction on them, but there are also a whole series of new restrictions on gambling in this country. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said very fairly the other day that she would listen to concerns raised from all parts of the House about this Bill, and we will. But for the right hon. and learned Gentleman, after a four-year process, to suddenly stand at the Dispatch Box and make such an allegation simply reflects on him.

Michael Howard: Let me make crystal clear what I am suggesting. I am suggestingindeed, I have demonstratedthat discussions have taken place on money laundering between the DCMS and the biggest casino operators in Las Vegas, and that the Secretary of State denied that in this House on Monday. We know that the Government have been offering concessions on money laundering to the operators of those casinos, and that the Secretary of State tried to cover it up. What is the Prime Minister going to do about it?

Tony Blair: I am sorry, but I do not accept at all that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has somehow shown that concessions have been offered on money laundering to casino operators. It really is ridiculous of him to suggest such a thing. I could at least understand it if he were putting forward his opposition to the Bill on the basis of what it actually says, although he probably feels somewhat discomfited by the fact that, as I said, the Conservative party supported these measures until a few weeks ago. But to mount an allegation of such a serious nature on the basis of some email that he has picked up is utterly absurd.

Seamus Mallon: The Prime Minister will know that Annetta Flanagan, one of the three young people taken hostage in Afghanistan, is a constituent of mine, and will be aware of the intense grief that her family and the community feel. As he continues to strive for her safe release, will he make it clear that no dogma, no creed and no political objective can justify her kidnapping, that of Margaret Hassan or that of anyone else? Will he agree that that humanitarian message would be much more powerful, effective and listened to were it not diminished by the number of innocent Iraqi women and children who have been killed to date, which cannot be justified by many people there

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Prime Minister.

Tony Blair: In respect of the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I agree entirely with him. In respect of the second part, we do not accept the figures released by The Lancet last week at all. The Iraqi Ministry of Health has put out figures for the six months up to October, which suggest just over 3,000 deaths, but that includes people who are either terrorists or insurgents and those who have been the victims of terrorist attack. We do everything we possibly can to limit civilian casualties, but when our troops and Iraqi forces come under fire, they have to return fire. The way to stop all civilian casualties in Iraq is for insurgents and terrorists to lay down their weapons, allow the elections to go ahead in January and allow Iraq to become a stable democracy.

Charles Kennedy: May I ask the Prime Minister about the other democratic decision that is bound to have preoccupied him this week, the north-east regional assembly referendum? Will he take the opportunity to urge voters there not to repeat the mistake that the Scots made back in 1979 by voting no to devolution, only to have to wait 20 years to see it established? Does he agree that, with only 24 hours to go, it is most important that north-east voters take the opportunity to go out and vote yes?

Tony Blair: Yes, I agree entirely. Devolution has been shown to work in Scotland and in Wales and London-wide government has also been shown to work. The fact that the north-east assembly will be handling hundreds of millions of pounds of money will mean an actual reduction in the overall number of councils in the north-east. It is right to have devolution and decentralisation of power and I support that.

Charles Kennedy: Staying on the subject of referendums, we would all agree that one of the lessons of the north-east campaign is that the more positive campaigning is done in advance, the better it is when the decision is reached. As all parties in the House are committed to a referendum at some point on the European Union proposed constitution, when is the Prime Minister himself going to get out, with cross-party support, and begin positively to make the case for that constitution?

Tony Blair: I always do, not only when I am asked, but on any occasion when I can talk about it. It is entirely sensible that Europe changes its rules when there is a Europe of 25 members, which will become 30 over time. It is right to have a modern framework of rules for Europe, provided, as the new constitution makes clear, that we protect our own right to determine our tax rates, our foreign policy and our defence and retain our opt-in in relation to asylum and immigration. Provided all of that is correct, the people of this country will believe that it is right for us to be at the centre of Europe, not on its margins.

Andy King: Many workers at Jaguar in Coventry who live in Rugby and Kenilworth are very angry at the way in which Ford has handled the future of the Browns Lane plant. The car industry plays a very important role in the growing strength of the west midlands economy. Can I ask my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to continue to do everything possible to secure the long-term future of Jaguar in the west midlands?

Tony Blair: First, in respect of the Browns Lane plant, my hon. Friend, who has been active on the issue, knows that we have spoken to the company and the unions, urging them to sit down and to try to work out a proper way forward. I understand the strength of feeling, especially as the work force feel that they were given assurances on the future of the plant. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has recently spoken again to the parties concerned. I am sure myself, however, that it is also important to press for assurances about the long-term future of Jaguar in the west midlands, and we will continue to do so.

Howard Flight: Will the Prime Minister please confirm that, so long as he remains Prime Minister, he will not abolish the earnings limit on employees' national insurance contributions?

Tony Blair: We have absolutely no plans to do so.

Wayne David: The Prime Minister will agree that antisocial behaviour needs to be tackled firmly. I believe that the measures announced this week for an extension of spot-fines will certainly help in that respect. Does he also agree that measures to tackle graffiti and to break up teen gangs, which have not been supported by all Members in the House, have been particularly successful? Can we look forward to more measures of that kind in future?

Tony Blair: First, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it has been important to add further offences to the fixed-penalty notice regime. Also, the antisocial behaviour legislation is working, and working well, as was obvious from last week's report. We need to make sure that that is used right across our communities. I am delighted to say that the Liberal Democrat spokesman on these issues recently said about ASBOs:
	Having gone round the country I can't, hand on my heart, say these aren't a useful thing.
	Unfortunately, the Liberal Democrats voted against all the measures in the Bill that introduced these provisions; we look for their conversion, one by one, on these matters.

Michael Howard: Why does the Prime Minister think that shoplifters should not get a criminal record?

Tony Blair: There is no reason why shoplifters should not get a criminal record. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is referring to fixed-penalty notices, it is important that we are able to levy such notices, but the full criminal law still applies.

Michael Howard: Let us be clear about what is happening. As a result of a law passed by this Government that came into force on Monday, shoplifters will be punished by means of a fixed-penalty notice, such as applies to people parking on a double yellow line. Right? Shoplifters will no longer get a criminal record. Right? Shoplifters are being told that they can steal up to 200 worth of goods, and in exchange get a fixed-penalty notice of 80. Right? That means that they can take 200 and get fined 80. This week, the Government produced a charter for shoplifters. Is that what the Prime Minister meant when he talked about being tough on crime?

Tony Blair: The right hon. and learned Gentleman gets worse. First, the fixed-penalty notice is not a substitute for the ordinary criminal offence. [[Hon. Members: It is.] No, it is not, as police officers are perfectly entitled to arrest the person involved and charge him under the law. However, if they decide

Michael Howard: Who?

Tony Blair: The police officers. If they decide that they want to serve a fixed-penalty notice, they can do so. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that fixed-penalty notices have been welcomed by police right across the country. Fixed-penalty notices are not a substitute for the existing criminal law; they are in addition to it. Right?

Michael Jabez Foster: Whatever their views on Iraq, many of my constituents are anxious that British troops who are there at Christmas should have the best possible contact with their families. Does my right hon. Friend agree that something should be done about restoring the free post to troops in Iraq?

Tony Blair: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has been considering the strong representations on this matter that have come from all sides of this House. I am pleased to announce that, in the run-up to Christmas, the Ministry of Defence will help friends and relatives send postal packets free of charge from anywhere in the UK to all service personnel serving overseas. We will see what happens after that period, but Christmas is a special time, when our thoughts are with those who are deployed overseas. We wish to recognise the exceptional commitment made by our servicemen and women world wide.

Charles Hendry: Is the Prime Minister aware that in much of east Sussex and Kent women with breast cancer are having to wait three months for radiotherapy, and that that wait is expected to rise to five months as a result of a shortage of radiotherapy equipment and operators? Is he aware that breast cancer is the second biggest killer among women who die of cancer, and that if it is not treated within five months there is a much higher risk that the cancer will return? Is it not completely unacceptable that people living with the physical, mental and emotional problems associated with cancer must wait so long for treatment that genuinely could determine whether they live or die?

Tony Blair: It is, of course, absolutely unacceptable, which is why we have been taking action on it. Breast cancer services in the UK are certainly improving faster than anywhere in Europe, and are now a match for the very best in the world. I do not know about the situation in the hon. Gentleman's constituency or area, and I shall look into it. However, we have made a huge investment into cancer services and hired extra cancer consultants. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has brought in an extra 600,000 MRI scans. That shows that we are trying to deal with the radiology bottleneck in the treatment of all cancers, and we shall look to do more. Finally, I shall look into the specific circumstances in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and write to him.

John Battle: We all welcome the successful outcome and process of the elections in Afghanistan, but will my right hon. Friend ensure that promised international development funds actually reach the newly elected President and his government, so that there is proper, local sustainable economic development both to tackle poverty in Afghanistan and to undermine the pernicious poppy cultivation that washes up as drug abuse in our communities?

Tony Blair: I totally agree with my right hon. Friend. We are making efforts to ensure that the money gets through and, in forthcoming weeks, we shall announce a new programme on the eradication of the drugs trade in Afghanistan. After the fall of the Taliban, we have seen what will, I believe, be a temporary increase in the amount of poppy cultivation. We have to bring that back down again, but we must also make sure that the economic development of Afghanistanthere is growth of about 25 or 30 per cent. a yearis not distorted by people feeling that their only livelihood is in cultivation of the poppy. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; we have to deal with the matter at an international level, and we will do so.

Simon Burns: Is the Prime Minister aware of the concerns of local authorities such as mine about the growing problem of Travellers who buy or occupy land in rural areas and then flout the planning laws to build on it, resulting in a considerable amount of money and time being spent to rectify the problem through the courts? Will the Prime Minister intervene to ensure that local authorities are given the greatest powers possible to combat the problem and to protect local residents whose lives are made such a misery by that antisocial practice?

Tony Blair: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, and I have held discussions with hon. Members about it. My understanding is that we are actually giving local authorities greater powers to ensure that they can take immediate action in the courts, rather than having a drawn-out process that often means that buildings or dwellings are erected by Travellers before there has been a chance to take action. However, we are looking at the matter again to ensure that the powers are sufficiently tough. I know from my own constituency that the issue can be serious and I think that the combination of measures that we are taking will make a genuine difference. But I am looking at the issue myself and, on that, too, perhaps I can get back to the hon. Gentleman.

Alice Mahon: Will the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that when the United States launches its bomb-into-submission policy on Falluja, our Army will not become involved in any way in what are collective punishments that indiscriminately kill innocent civilians?

Tony Blair: I have to say to my hon. Friend that the situation is simple. There is a Government in Iraq who have been appointed by the UN; not, as some people say, by the US, but by the UN. There will be elections supervised by the UN in January. What we are saying to people in Fallujathis is from the Iraqi Government, never mind the multinational forceis, Lay down your weapons, submit to the authority of that UN-appointed Government, participate in the election, and see from the election how much support you have. But what we and the Iraqi Government cannot allow is a situation where outside terrorists and others use Falluja as a base to mount operations and kill innocent civilians and our soldiers, who are doing a job blessed by the United Nations Security Council resolution. To describe that as collective punishment of Falluja is gross, if I may say so to my hon. Friend. The collective punishment that is being visited on people in Iraq is collective punishment by suicide bombers and people detonating vehicles and trying to stop the democratic process taking place; our job is to make sure that it does.

Alan Reid: May I draw the Prime Minister's attention to the case of a pensioner who lives on one of the islands in my constituency? She has poor eyesight, but is able to go to the post office every week to collect her pension. However, she and many other pensioners with poor eyesight will find it difficult, if not impossible, to work with Post Office card accounts, and to recognise the cheques that the Department for Work and Pensions plans to send through the post instead of pension books. Will the Prime Minister agree to keep pension books for pensioners who, owing to poor eyesight, are unable to work with the Post Office card account and for whom cheques are unsuitable?

Tony Blair: My understanding is that the Post Office is working with the Royal National Institute of the Blind to make sure that the problem is overcome. It is obviously a problem for people who have impaired sight but, as I say, it is my understanding that discussions are now taking place between the Department for Work and Pensions and the RNIB to resolve it.

Iain Luke: I am sure that the Prime Minister welcomes the real impact that community wardens have had both north and south of the border, but will he do all he can to expand the system so that all communities benefit from this very positive scheme?

Tony Blair: Clearly, if we keep the investment going in, we have the possibility over the next few years of having not just record numbers of police but supporting that with community support officers and neighbourhood wardens. I would like to see a situation in which every community that needs one has a community patrol, so that we are back with a visible, uniformed presence on our streets in our local communities. Where this is happening throughout the United Kingdom, it is having a major impact not just on crime itself but on the fear of crime.

Hugh Robertson: The Volcker inquiry into corruption at the United Nations during the oil-for-food scandal will not report for a number of years, by which time many of those implicated will have retired. Given the implications of that scandal for the urgently needed reform of the United Nations and the fact that money from the programme is subsidising the insurgency in Iraq that is threatening the lives of British servicemen and women and British civilians, why did the Prime Minister not raise the issue in any way with the Secretary-General during his visit to London a week ago?

Tony Blair: We have, of course, raised this issue with the Secretary-General and the United Nations on previous occasions. It is a serious question. It will take some time to get to the bottom of what has happened but we, in particular, have a very firm belief, for very obvious reasons, that if the oil-for-food programme has been abused in any way, the people who have abused it should be held to account. I simply point out to the hon. Gentleman that these issues are also being raised by the UN high-level panel that the Secretary-General established a short time ago. That will report over the next few weeks, and there is a British representative on it. That will give us the additional protection to make sure that such things cannot happen in future.

Richard Burden: May I welcome the Prime Minister's assurance that, in conjunction with the President of the United States, he will be giving priority over the coming months to the middle east peace process? What can he do in practice to ensure that reality on the ground in the middle east reflects the theory of the road map? Part of that involves pressing for an end to suicide bombingsa point that he makes frequentlybut will he also address the comments of Mr. Dov Weisglass, a senior adviser to Ariel Sharon, who said that disengagement from Gaza is not a furthering of the peace process but a freezing of it and that the agenda for a Palestinian state has been taken off Israel's agenda with the blessing of the President of the United States?

Tony Blair: I have not seen those remarks and I would like to see the context before I commented on them specifically. My very clear viewI believe it is shared by President Bush and certainly by the international communityis that the disengagement plan from the Gaza is important. I welcome it; I applaud the fact that Prime Minister Sharon is proceeding with it. However, it is a first step and if it is used properly, it can help us to get back into a proper process of peace negotiations that lead to a final settlement based on the two-state solution; an Israel that is confident of its security and a viable Palestinian state. I do not know of any statements that contradict that, but that is the visionthe only vision in my viewthat will bring a lasting peace to the middle east.

Richard Ottaway: Despite the fact that weapons of mass destruction have not been found in Iraq, the Prime Minister has always argued that a change of regime there was legitimate. The Foreign Secretary's secret and personal memo to the Prime Minister dated 25 March 2002 advised him:
	Legally there are two potential elephant traps:
	(i) regime change per se is no justification for military action.
	What exactly did the Prime Minister understand that to mean?

Tony Blair: Let me repeat this again, as I have done many times in the House; I understood that to mean that the legal grounds had to be a breach of United Nations resolutions. That was precisely what the legal grounds were. I should point out that the Iraq survey group, which is prayed in aid by many people on the existence of readily deployable weapons, makes it absolutely clear that there were multiple breaches of United Nations resolutions. That is why the legal basis was not merely clear at the time; it is clear now and was actually adhered to.

Anne Begg: Will the Prime Minister say that in any future pension strategy, a Labour Government will ensure that pensioners on the lowest incomes will see their incomes rise by more than 55p a week for a single pensioner and 5p a week for a pensioner couple, which is what the Scottish nationalists proposed yesterday?

Tony Blair: I think I can safely say that I would absolutely deplore such a policy. I had not come across the proposal myself, but now that I have, I am shocked and outraged by it. It only goes to show what a bad idea it would be to vote for them.

Point of Order

Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Could hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly?

Barry Sheerman: I do not usually raise points of order on matters of House of Commons security, but one of my constituents received an invitation to a reception in the House on 9 November that looked like a written personal invitation from the Prime Minister. After doing a little research, I found that the reception was for Animal Defenders International. The invitation was sent to a large number of people with an advertisement saying:
	WHIP ME BEAT ME KICK ME 9th November 2004. House of Commons.
	Given the heightened security in the House, it seems to be quite irresponsible for a Member to book a room to host such an event, especially given that the invitation does not indicate the purpose of the meeting or who that Member is. The invitation has gone out to a large number of people throughout the country. Many have been taken in by it and thought that they had received an invitation from the Prime Minister himself.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman gives me the documents, I will ensure that the Serjeant at Arms investigates the matter and reports to me.

Sex Equality (Duties of Public Authorities)

Angela Eagle: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision in relation to public authorities for the further prevention of sex discrimination and for the promotion of equality of opportunity for men and women.
	Such a duty to promote equality was introduced for race discrimination in the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. The Audit Commission has since described that as the key driver for change to combat the discrimination that still exists against our black and ethnic minority communities. Likewise, the draft Disability Discrimination Bill also contains a positive duty on the public sector to promote equalityand rightly so. It is now time for the same advance to be made for women and men, and my Bill would accomplish that.
	The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 outlaws discrimination between women and men in the workplace and in the provision of goods and services. It was pioneering legislation 28 years ago when the incomparable Barbara Castle put it on the statute book. Her vision and determination put Britain at the forefront of the battle for equal opportunities and key advances were made. However, the Act does not prevent discrimination from happening in the first place, but it provides redress and compensation to those who experience it after the event, so only those who are determined enough to endure the stresses and strains of a legal process, the threat of losing their job or the likelihood of incurring high legal costs get the chance of receiving recompense. Cases can take many years to resolve with the result that women are still sacked for being pregnant and men are penalised at work for taking on caring responsibilities. In Britain today, much illegal discrimination is left unchallenged and unchecked.
	A positive duty to promote equality would address that problem by shifting the onus to end discrimination from the individuals who suffer it to the public bodies that provide vital services to all of us and employ many millions to deliver them. The duty to promote will close many of those practical loopholes in the law, and make the fight against unfairness and blighted life chances much more effective. Make no mistake, there is still much to do, as recent figures have confirmed that the pay gap between women and men is stubbornly persistent at 18 per cent. Pay in the public sector is generally better than in the private sector. For example, the gap stands at 13 per cent. in health care, but in banking and public relations it is a staggering 56 per cent., and is widening. The causes are well documented, and women's lack of access to bonuses, overtime and opportunities for promotion are significant factors. Child care and other caring responsibilities often leave women with little choice but to work part-time for pay and conditions that are inferior to those in the full-time labour market, which often leads to men having to work even longer hours to make up the family income. British men work the longest hours in Europe, which is clearly not good for family life.
	At work, women are still concentrated overwhelmingly in low-paid occupations and can expect to retire after a lifetime of hard work on a pension income that is just over half that of their male counterparts. Once again, the situation is not improving. The Equal Opportunities Commission, which supports the Bill, recently conducted an inquiry into job segregation by gender, and looked at five sectorsconstruction, engineering, plumbing, information technology and child care. Four of those sectors have a mainly male work force and major skills shortages, and one has a largely female work force and low pay. The commission discovered that the Government's modern apprenticeship scheme has reinforced rather than challenged that gender segregation. There has been no increase in the number of women coming into the four male-dominated sectors in the past ten years. For example, women make up only 1 per cent. of people working in construction, yet only 1 per cent. of modern apprentices in construction are women. Eight per cent. of people working in engineering are women, yet only 6 per cent. of modern apprenticeships in engineering are held by women. In child care, despite the prospective creation of 150,000 new jobs, men are almost completely absent from the sector and pay remains very low. A man who wishes to pursue a career in child care is still considered mildly eccentric or much worse. Overall, 95 per cent. of apprenticeships in engineering and construction are held by men, who earn 115 a week. In social care, by contrast, 89 per cent. of apprenticeships are taken by women, who earn just 60 a week.
	Once the positive duty to promote equality is enshrined in law it is inconceivable that the lack of progress in tacking job segregation would be allowed to continue, and the role of the modern apprenticeship scheme in reinforcing that segregation would end. Banishing gender job segregation would offer women more choices and higher earnings opportunities and would also address skill shortages and boost our economic efficiency. It would offer men more civilised choices about their work-life balance. The duty to promote can also be a lever to ensure that public services are redesigned to reflect the life experiences of women and men more effectively. For example, men are much less likely than women to visit their GPs in a timely fashion, and only go to the doctor when their illness is advanced. Primary health services need to be redesigned to encourage men to seek help earlier. Women, on the other hand, rely on public transport much more than men as they have less access to private cars. They also have different patterns of usage, and combine trips to the shops with journeys to take children to school or the childminder, as well as their own travel to work. That is a complex set of journeys, yet bus routes and ticketing are often designed for simple commuting from one place to another. I could provide many similar examples of the scope for improving the design and delivery of public services to meet the needs of women and men more effectively. That can only improve efficiency and value for money.
	There are those who will argue that the positive duty to promote will just be a bureaucratic nightmare that will have no effect on improving fairness and efficiency. These criticisms are usually made by people who do not wish our equality laws to be effective or modernised. In reality, the introduction of a new requirement to promote equality in the public sector can be delivered as part of the core planning inside an organisation. It should lead to greater equity and a more effective use of existing resources. It need not introduce extra complexity or expense, or endless paper trails, but it should encourage strategic analysis that results in more user-focused provision. That will create public services that fit the shape of more people's lives and that offer people equal opportunities to benefit.
	I believe that, in due course, it is only right to extend these positive duties to prevent discrimination and promote equality to the private sector too. There is no reason why the efficiency and equity gains that they deliver should not benefit the whole economy and all our population. The Bill could be a small part of a third term Labour agenda to simplify, harmonise and extend equality protection to all. That would make our law simpler to understand and use for employers, employees and service providers alike. It would make protection from illegal discrimination a reality for all, and it would finish the work so ably begun by Barbara Castle by extending and opportunity further than ever before.

Eric Forth: There is, of course, always a temptation when these worthy measures are brought before the House on these occasions for us to allow them to pass. Procedurally, you know as I do, Mr. Speaker, that measures brought to the House at this stage in the Session have no chance of reaching the statute book, for which I for one am grateful. There are occasions, however, on which I believe hon. Members should express a view when they think that the measure is ill-founded and ill-directed, as, sadly, I think this one is.
	Although we always respect the motivation of hon. Members when they introduce such measuresI certainly respect the motivation of the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle)I believe that going too far in an area such as that with which the Bill deals can be just as damaging as not going far enough. For example, I was struck by her comment early in her speech that much illegal discrimination goes unchallenged. I think that she was referring to the existing law and suggesting that it was perhaps not being used to the full. I immediately wondered whose fault it was that such discrimination went unchallenged. In my view, one of the main duties of a trade union, for example, should surely be to use every opportunity under existing law to represent its members, be they male, female or whatever, in the context of the very law that she praised so highly.
	If the hon. Lady is saying that much illegal discrimination is unchallenged, I ask herand this applies to so much new legislation that is brought before the Housewhy we should not concentrate on using existing legislation more effectively before seeking to introduce yet more. That is a matter of important general principle, and I doubt very much from what she said whether she has spent quite enough time considering whether existing legislation is being explored to the full, not least by the trade unions, before seeking to introduce yet further measures of the sort that she is talking about.
	The worrying thing is that the hon. Lady and her Government would be the first to say that, in the context of historically low unemployment in this country, which I applaud, and the fact that this country has one of the highest proportions of women in work in the western world, any measure that even risks diminishing those conditions could be highly counterproductive. There is always a risk that, if well-intentioned measures such as the Bill are carried too far and reach too far into the workplace, they could start to have a counterproductive effect. That danger cannot be over-stated.
	We are familiar with the phenomenon by which a quango set up under previous well-meaning legislation uses the resources given to it further to justify its existence and to extend its remit, which is a natural thing for people in quangos to do and we see it all the time. However, simply because a well-funded quango says, We have discovered more things to do, or, even worse, Another new quango should be set up, does not mean that we should say, That's all right then. That is one of the weakest parts of the hon. Lady's argument.
	The hon. Lady went on to make an interesting case about apprenticeships. She said that far too few women avail themselves of apprenticeships in engineering and that too few men work in child careI do not know how one arrives at too few in that context. I do not know whether the hon. Lady expects an equal number of men and women to enter engineering apprenticeships and child care, or whether the number of women on engineering apprenticeships is not quite enough to satisfy her.
	Leaving that matter to one side, how can one intervene in the structure and running of apprenticeships in order to change that balance? Such arguments always miss that point. It is easy to say, There are too few women in engineering apprenticeships. I am intrigued to know the mechanism by which the number of women in engineering apprenticeships, or indeed the number of men in child care, would be increased. It is not good enough to state the problem and then assume that the solution will be made available.
	Even more intriguingly, the hon. Lady went on to discuss lifestyle changes, which sound very trendy. Were the legislation to reach the statute book, it would allow some sort of quango to intervene in transport and many other arrangements in order to fulfil the requirements set out in hon. Lady's motion. Again, we must be careful before we go too far in that direction. It is difficult enough to improve our public transport arrangements, whether tubes, buses or railways, without the nightmarish thought that some well-meaning quango will say, We have identified some necessary lifestyle changes in the population. We think that our railways should run differently and that our buses should run on different routes in order to try to improve people's lifestyles.
	The resolution is far reaching and ambitious. It has the potential to reach into all aspects of employment, the public sector, transport and many other areas. As for the duty to promoteI pick out that phrase because the hon. Lady stressed itshe did not give any details, perhaps because of lack of time, on how it would bear on employers and the workplace. The phrase is easy to deploy and sounds attractive, if it is said fairly quickly, but when one starts to examine the implications and ramifications of a duty to promote, which would no doubt be policed by a quango, reaching out into the workplace and interfering yet further in relationships between managers and the managed, one sees scope for severe disruption of the employment process, of which the Government are rightly so proud.
	I urge the hon. Lady to think again about the implications of what she is suggesting. Such measures are always well motivated, but the implications and the adverse effect on the workplace are extremely worrying. If the hon. Lady is not prepared to do the decent thing and withdraw her proposal, I hope that the House, having given the matter careful consideration, will say, perhaps with regret, that it is not persuaded that the measure, radical and far reaching as it is, is remotely justified and should therefore not proceed.
	Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Angela Eagle, Vera Baird, Mr. Roger Berry, Mr. John Grogan, Helen Jackson, Ann McKechin, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Joan Ruddock, Mr. Shaun Woodward and Mr. Parmjit Dhanda.

Sex Equality (Duties Of Public Authorities) Bill

Angela Eagle accordingly presented a Bill to make provision in relation to public authorities for the further prevention of sex discrimination and for the promotion of equality of opportunity for men and women: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 November, and to be printed [Bill 172].

Members' Allowances

Mr. Speaker: We now have three hours for the motion on Members' allowances and the two motions on parliamentary pensions. At the conclusion of the three-hour debate, I shall call the amendments to the Members' allowances motion that I have selected to be moved formally; the House will vote on each in turn and then on the main motion on Members' allowances, amended or not, as the case may be. We shall then vote on the two motions on pensions.
	My selection of amendments has been posted in the No Lobby in the usual way.

Peter Hain: I beg to move,
	(1) That this House notes the recommendations made in Chapter 4 of the report of the Review Body on Senior Salaries on parliamentary pay and allowances (Cm 6354-I) a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st October; and is of the opinion that the provisions set out in paragraphs (2) to (5) below should be implemented, subject to any decisions of the Members Estimate Committee with regard to their application.
	Staffing Allowance
	(2) With effect from 1st April 2005, the Staffing Allowance should be increased to a base level of 72,000, rising to a maximum of 80,460, according to the number of full-time equivalent employees funded from the Staffing Allowance and based in London; and these sums should be adjusted on 1st April each year (beginning on 1st April 2005) in line with the Average Earnings Index for public and private sectors combined.
	IT Provision
	(3) With effect from the beginning of the next Parliament, the level of provision of IT equipment and support should be increased in line with recommendations 11 and 12 of the Review Body's report (Cm 6354-I).
	London Supplement
	(4) With effect from 1st April 2005, the London Supplement should be increased to 2,500, and this sum should be adjusted on 1st April each year (beginning on 1st April 2005) in line with the Average Earnings Index for public and private sectors combined; and it should not be payable to any Member who receives the Additional Costs Allowance.
	Car Mileage Allowance and Parking
	(5) With effect from 1st April 2005, the Car Mileage Allowance should be payable at the same rate as the car mileage rates approved by the Inland Revenue, with the higher rate payable up to a total of 10,000 miles and the lower rate thereafter or as determined in future by the Inland Revenue; and the cost of parking a car, motorcycle or bicycle, if wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the performance of parliamentary duties, should be reimbursed.
	Incidental Expenses Provision
	(6)
	That recommendation 8 of the Review Body's report (Cm 6354-I) be referred to the House of Commons Members Estimate Committee for further consideration.
	We have three motions before us this afternoon, the first of which is on Members' allowances, the second and third on parliamentary pensions. Explanatory memorandums on each have been placed in the Vote Office. All three are tabled in response to the report of the Review Body on Senior Salariesthe SSRB's triennial review of pay and allowances, a copy of which was laid before the House on 21 October. The Government are grateful to the SSRB for undertaking the review with its customary thoroughness and expertise. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House join me in thanking John Baker and his team for their hard work.
	Let me say a word or two about the status of the SSRB. It is an independent organisation. That the Government, as a matter of principle, put its recommendations to the House is established practice. We ask the SSRB to study specific matters and it makes a recommendation, and it is to our advantage that we take outside and independent advice. I know that the whole House shares that view.
	I emphasise that we are not debating Members' pay this afternoon. The SSRB recommended no increase in Members' or Ministers' salaries beyond the normal annual uprating in line with inflation. Personally, I think that that is right. Members' allowances have been the subject of some attention recently. It is understandable that some of the media and our constituents question whether the considerable sum spent on Members' allowances is well spent, but contrary to the lurid headlines, the allowances do not go to line our own pockets: they are essential if we are to function as effective Members of Parliament both at Westminster and in our constituencies, and all claims are within agreed rules.
	The position today is very different from the one 20 or 30 years ago, when many Members lived in London, went to their constituency perhaps once a month for the odd surgery, and did not have a constituency office. Our constituents demand a different level of service and it is proper that the House has put in place the resources necessary to support that.
	There are five effective parts to the motion. I shall deal with the amendments that you have selected, Mr. Speaker(g), (h), (c) and (i)during my opening remarks, if that is convenient. Paragraph (2) is applicable to the staffing allowance. It would implement recommendation 5 of the SSRB's report so that, with effect from 1 April 2005, the staffing allowance will be increased to a base of 72,000, rising to a maximum of 80,460 according to the number of full-time equivalent employees funded from the staffing allowance and based in London. Those sums will be adjusted annually in line with the average earnings index. The purpose is to enable Members to employ three full-time equivalent staff at proper rates of pay and to take account of the increased cost of employing staff in London.
	I hope that the House will support the change. The SSRB based its recommendations on extensive analysis of pay rates in comparable jobs in London and outside. Although we must be careful with public money, we must pay our staff a decent rate for the job.

Michael Spicer: In reference to paragraphs (2) and (6), what does the right hon. Gentleman think is the reasonable minimum number of secretaries that a Member of Parliament should be able to employ in the Palace of Westminster without penalties?

Peter Hain: That is a very complicated question and difficult to answer with a simple yes or no. The reason I hesitate to respond is that each Member allocates staff and determines the precise arrangements according to his or her own needs and choices, and I think that that is an important right shared by all of us.

Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way again so quickly. He did not answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer), but will he answer mine? Does he agree that whether we base our staff in our constituency or at Westminster is a matter for each Member to determine and that the system should be neutral between the two decisions?

Peter Hain: I am not sure that I accept the right hon. Lady's point about neutrality, because Members who base all their staff at Westminster do not pay rents and get free heat, lighting, use of the telephone and photocopying, and so on, whereas those of us who have constituency officesthe vast majority, including the right hon. Ladyincur costs there. However, one of the reasons why the motion refers the SSRB recommendation to the Members Estimate Committee, as the SSRB anticipated it might be, is that we would get into a difficult position if there were, in effect, a massive disincentive to having staff employed within the Palace or on the parliamentary estate. We are parliamentarians as well as constituency MPs, and that is an important principle to maintain.

Patrick McLoughlin: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, however, that in the light of the fact that the expenses and allowances paid to Members are now published, they should be equally and easily understood and able to be judged? Giving different allowancestaking 7,000 off a Member and making extra provision if a Member employs all his or her staff in Londonadds to the complexity of already complex rules. Should we not be creating a simpler, more straightforward system that is easy to understand and easily accounted for?

Peter Hain: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. He has gone into the matter in considerable detail. There are enormous benefits in simplicity; on the other hand, the decision that the House took to establish two separate sources of allowancethe staffing allowance and the incidental expenses allowance, which overwhelmingly is directed toward constituency offices, although it can be used for other purposeshad the advantage of ensuring that our employees would not have to compete constantly against demands to buy a computer, or to pay a constituency office bill. We have an obligation to our employees to ensure that they have decent conditions.

Oliver Heald: Does the Leader of the House share my concern that the proposal on the incidental expenses provision, which the SSRB no doubt made in good faith, is extremely complicated? If the Members Estimate Committee accepts the recommendation, there will, in effect, be four levels of IEP for new Members starting after the general election, and a transitional arrangement with four different levels of IEP applicable to existing Members. Is there not at least the possibility of coming up with a simpler method of dealing with the problem of providing a little extra help to Members who have their offices outside London?

Peter Hain: Yes, there is a simpler wayit is described on the Order Paper. On the other handthe hon. Gentleman and I share common concerns on this, and I shall come on to it in some detail laterthe enormous pressure on the parliamentary estate means that we have many different interests to reconcile. The SSRB tried to do that, but recognised that it would involve practical implications beyond its remit. We referred the proposal on the IEP to the Members Estimate Committee so that it could address precisely these issues. It is not the SSRB's fault, but the proposal that came to us had certain rigidities that could have had all sorts of anomalous effects. It is very important that proper consideration be given to that.

Frank Dobson: The question of pressure on the parliamentary state is certainly outside the SSRB's terms of reference. According to paragraph 4.43 of its report,
	The House authorities wish to encourage MPs to locate their office staff in the constituency.
	Who are these House authoritiesthe men in wigs and tights? They take their authority from Members, and Members have never said that they want that.

Peter Hain: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's passion, but the House authorities provide an extremely valuable service for us all in the variety of different functions that they undertake. They have a responsibility to inform the SSRB about a variety of issues affecting the parliamentary estate, including the enormous pressure on it.

Mike Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the proposals in the report would seriously affect those of us who are outer-London MPs with a constituency office and staff in the House of Commons, as well as a huge amount of immigration and asylum casework? I would have either to sack one of my members of staff or to close down my constituency office.

Peter Hain: That is why the motion refers the matter to the Members Estimate Committee, where several such issues will be discussed.
	The purpose of my bringing before the House a series of proposals on how allowances should be structured is to allow the House to decide on them. It is for the SSRB to recommend, but for the House to make the decisions.

Barry Sheerman: What surprises many of us is not that the recommendations came about but that none of us were consulted. I should have thought that consultation of Members of Parliament on their office costs and where they want to locate their staff would have been undertaken before proposals were brought to the House. That would be done in even the most primitive organisation.

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend clearly has strong feelings, as have many Members on both sides of the House. I understand that. However, it is not true to say that Members were not consulted. Everybody knew that the SSRB inquiry was going on and anybody could have submitted evidence. At the back of the report there is a list of those who did so. The Speaker's Advisory Panel, which consists of Members of this House, was consulted. The proposal did not come out of thin air. It would not be right to criticise the SSRB, which has done a very professional job in the circumstances.

David Winnick: I employ one member of staff in the House of Commons. Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is disturbing that we are being told how we should go about our business in serving our constituents? It is not up to the body that has made this recommendation, the House authorities, or anyone but ourselves to decide whether we best serve our constituents by having staff here or in the constituency. I happen to have a constituency office. The proposals are simply unacceptable, and it is just as well that the Leader of the House should know that.

Peter Hain: As I said, that is precisely why the motion refers the matter to the Members Estimate Committee. I agree that it is for Members to decide how they allocate their different allowances and serve their constituencies. Equally, however, there are constraints. One of those is the amount of accommodation that is available on the parliamentary estate; another is that those of us with constituency offices incur considerable additional costs, which are not incurred by Members who have all their staff located here. We have all sorts of different interests to balance.

Alex Salmond: The IEP should not be used to put pressure on staff salaries, which is why they have been kept separate; nor should it be used to pay for overnight stays for Members of Parliament on parliamentary business, which properly come under the additional costs allowance. When the Committee considers these issues, will the Leader of the House bear in mind that the rules for the additional cost allowance were drawn up in 1971 before there was a Parliament in Scotland, a National Assembly in Wales or any other assemblies that might come into being? Costs incurred on overnight stays on parliamentary business involving those places should come under the additional costs allowance.

Peter Hain: I noted the hon. Gentleman's amendment, which was not selected. The difficulty is that the additional costs allowance is intended for a very specific purpose: to allow Members of Parliament to have both a constituency home and a London home in order that we can do our jobs effectively. If the ACA were to be redirected to other areas, that would raise issues about the basis on which it is established. The hon. Gentleman may claim under the incidental expenses provision.
	The hon. Gentleman refers to the Scottish Parliament. That does not affect me, for example, because I have no constituency interest in going there, although I visit the Welsh Assembly, which, as it happens to be between my constituency and London, does not cause a problem. The hon. Gentleman can continue to press his case, and we will no doubt continue to take account of it.
	If I may make a little progress, I shall deal with some of the points that hon. Members have made. Amendment (g), which was tabled by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) and others, would increase the staffing allowance to 80,460the amount that the SSRB recommendedfor all Members, ending the system of differential allowances for London-based Members and those with their staff based in the constituency, while allowing Members to use up to 10 per cent. of the staffing allowance to fund their constituency office. Linked to that is amendment (h), which would remove from the motion the proposed reference of the SSRB's recommendation on the IEP to the Members Estimate Committee.
	I sympathise with the underlying point of amendment (g), which suggests that although Members with staff in London pay out more in salaries for their staff, Members with staff in their constituency may pay out more on office rental and other costs. That needs to be recognised in the funds that are provided.
	However, the amendment would not encourage any location of staff to constituency offices. Furthermore, the staffing allowance and incidental expenses provision are each available for specific purposes, as I explained, and there is a logic to ring-fencing them for those purposes. Allowing the staffing allowance to be put towards office costs would be a new departure and would undermine the principle that the staffing allowance should be ring-fenced and available only for the purpose of paying for work done.

Paul Tyler: The Leader of the House has made much reference to ring-fencing to protect the salaries of staff. We are all sympathetic to that, but does he recognise that since the House introduced standard conditions of employment, with standard salary ranges, that argument has largely disappeared?

Peter Hain: I am not entirely sure that it has disappeared. It concerns the principle mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick): that it is for each Member to determine, within the acceptable custom and practice that the SSRB and the House rules provide, how to pay staff, whether they are based in the constituency or in London.
	Most significantly, amendment (g) would go well beyond the increase in staffing allowance recommended by the SSRB; I am advised that it would cost an extra 2 million to 3 million. I must therefore urge the House to reject it.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Leader of the House says that the proposal will cost an extra 2 million to 3 million. From the SSRB's report, how much will the increase in the incidental expenses provision cost?

Peter Hain: I do not have the figures, but the House authorities advise me that it would be an additional cost on top of the proposal that the SSRB recommended. I obviously need to rely on that advice.

Oliver Heald: Does the Leader of the House accept that the figures are not based on any research? If one examines the proposal for more money for IEP, amendment (g), which proposes instead more flexibility in the staff budget, appears neutral. Has the right hon. Gentleman gleaned some behavioural effect or research from the House authorities that supports the estimate of 2 million?

Peter Hain: We all rely on the Department of Finance and Administration, which has great expertise, and it has advised about the figures that I have presented to the House.
	I understand the unrest and anxiety, which is why I did not put the straight SSRB recommendation in the form of a motion. Indeed, the SSRB said that its practical phasing and implementation might need further consideration. Had I tabled such a motion, it would have been defeated for all sorts of reasons, some of which have been raised with me. I have therefore given hon. Members an opportunity to reflect, through the Members Estimate Committee, on how we should move forward. I believe that a much better approach would be for that Committee, which you chair, Mr. Speaker, to consider the SSRB's proposal for abating the IEP to encourage the location of staff away from the parliamentary estate.
	The Committee will consider the picture in the round, including the interaction between the staffing allowance and the IEP. That is a proper course of action, which will avoid hasty compromises with uncertain effects.

Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way to me a second time. If his recommendation is accepted and the matter is referred back to the Members Estimate Committee, would not it be appropriate for the House to express a view to that Committee about what it considers to be reasonable basic employment provision, which should not attract penalties? I am sad that my amendment (d) was not selected, but will the right hon. Gentleman at least undertake to ensure that the view of the House is taken before the Members Estimate Committee considers the matter?

Peter Hain: The Members Estimate Committee reflects the wishes of the House and can receive representations through the Speaker's advisory panel and ordinary representations. The fact that everything is being conducted so openly allows hon. Members to make their points. I understand the point that the right hon. Lady made in amendment (d), which was backed by many hon. Members from all parties. It relates to my earlier point that I understand the accommodation pressures and the desire on the part of the House authorities for location away from the parliamentary estate to constituency offices. There is enormous pressure, especially through interns, on the parliamentary estate. However, we are parliamentariansI believe that that lies behind the right hon. Lady's amendmentnot glorified social workers. We are parliamentarians in addition to providing a first-class constituency advice and assistance service. I believe that most of us try to provide such a service. Although the numbers have to be determined and have to be proportionate to the availability of accommodation and resources, it is important to sustain the case for locating staff here.

Nicholas Winterton: I have been a Member of Parliament for 33 years and the SSRB report is the first example of a report that seeks to tell Members of Parliament how to organise their offices. That is extremely dangerous. An outside body, with little experience of our work, is advising us on how to do our job. I am grateful that the Leader of the House said that the matter will be referred to the Members Estimate CommitteeI shall support that motion. I hope that the Committee will take into consideration the views of the House as expressed in the debate. Will the right hon. Gentleman express some anxiety about the fact that, for the first time, an outside body has sought to tell hon. Members how to organise their offices and the job that they do in the House and in their constituencies?

Peter Hain: As I have signalled in the clearest possible terms, I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. However, I must disagree emphatically with any suggestion that the SSRB has operated in an improper fashion. The SSRB is not telling him, me or any other Member what to do. It has provided a set of incentiveswhether the House and the Members Estimate Committee accept them or notto fulfil a set of criteria that it was invited to investigate. They include pressure on the parliamentary estate and the anomaly that hon. Members with staff who are based only on the estate get the whole IEP and do not bear the costs of a constituency office, as, for example, I do. It proposed a recommendation in good faith. We should respect that and I do not accept that it was ordering any of us to do anything. In the end, the House will make the decision.

Anne Campbell: If the SSRB had not made the recommendations, an entirely different set of people would be in the Chamber, complaining bitterly that it was not advantageous for them to have offices in their constituencies. Many hon. Members do not have staff in the House. The proposal is not as draconian as it appears at first sight. The SSRB also recommended that hon. Members should have computers as well as a laptop for themselves. [Interruption.] If the work station is based here and shared by a member of staff, I presume that it would not count against the 7,500 reduction in the IEP, which would allow hon. Members to have two members of staff here with only one work station. [Interruption.]

Peter Hain: I stress to hon. Members that my hon. Friend has done a lot of work on our behalf and her point is about the number of work stations that one can have in order to be allocated the specific provisions under the IEP that the SSRB recommends. Hon. Members can vary the number of staff according to the availability of work stations. That sort of detail makes it important for the Members Estimate Committee to consider the matter in greater depth.

Frank Dobson: For many years, Members of Parliament decided that we needed to improve the office accommodation for our staff and ourselves. Given that there is now more office accommodation than ever, why has someone decided on our behalf that we should discourage people from letting their staff use the accommodation? Three people work in my outer office. If I get rid of two, someone will continue to use the outer office and there will be no gain. My right hon. Friend says that we should submit the proposal to the Members Estimate Committee, but it will consider a transition towards something to which we have never agreed.

Peter Hain: The recommendation has been made precisely because I was aware of the concerns that my right hon. Friend and others have expressed. The Members Estimate Committee will therefore have a chance to examine the proposal in more detail.

Mark Field: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Peter Hain: I am afraid that I need to make progress.

Mark Field: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on the point that we are considering?

Peter Hain: No. I need to answer my right hon. Friend's other points and then I shall give way.
	The truth is that this place is bursting. There are already far too many people working here, and it is not the case that we could just fill up our offices with existing paid and unpaid members of staff. Even unpaid members of staff have an effect, through the greater use of catering and other facilities here, resulting in a drain on the House's resources. If we expect other people to be careful about public spending, we cannot simply expand our allowances and accommodation willy-nilly.

Michael Spicer: The theme running through this debate is that Members feel that they are not being properly consulted, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) pointed out. Will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that, when the Members Estimate Committee has done its work, the House will have a chance to take a view on its recommendations?

Peter Hain: On that specific point, I can say yes. If the Members Estimate Committee comes back with major changes to the way in which the allowance is structuredwhether of the exact nature that the SSRB has recommended, or a variation or equivalent of itof course the House will have to make a decision on them. That is absolutely right.

Clive Betts: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Peter Hain: I shall take one last intervention, then I must make some progress, because I know that other Members want to move their amendments and contribute to the debate.

Clive Betts: My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) talked about the office accommodation that has been provided here. Does the Leader of the House agree that it would be strange, having built Portcullis House a few years ago with specifically dedicated accommodation for staff to work alongside Members, if we were to pass a resolution now to discourage Members from employing any staff to work in that accommodation? There is something slightly not joined up about that thinking.

Peter Hain: That is another reason why it is right for the House, through the Members Estimate Committee, to consider further these conflicting points.

Mark Field: rose

Peter Hain: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, because he has been trying to intervene on me. I did something very unusual in the case of this SSRB report, in that I did not just put down the recommendations from the board, because I knew that they would provoke precisely the concerns that have been raised here this afternoon.

Mark Field: There is a universal dislike of the whole notion of abatement, the reasons for which a number of hon. Members have set out. For inner London Members and those who do not claim the additional costs allowance, who are assumed to have a single base, this whole idea is an absolute nightmare. I saw in this idiotic reportI am not a great fan of the SSRB reportthe suggestion that we could somehow get office space at between 8 and 23 a square foot. I should be very interested to see whether the Serjeant at Arms Department could find me or the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) anything at that price in our constituencies. Is it seriously being suggested that those of us with constituencies in central London should open satellite offices in Luton, Slough or Reading in order to make ends meet? That really is absolute nonsense.

Peter Hain: I am not suggesting that, and nothing that I have said suggests that. This is an independent report, and I hope that, on consideration, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw what he said about it being idiotic. It has been very carefully considered, although whether it has come to the right conclusion on this particular issue is a matter for the House. We asked the SSRB to look independently into the provision that we make for ourselves; otherwise we could just vote whatever we liked for ourselves, without any independent advice, and it is important that we bear this in mind.

Anne Picking: This obscure debate is certainly one-sided. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members whether they realise the impact of the lack of accommodation in the parliamentary estate. Some Members of Parliament are still working in offices that do not even have windows, never mind accommodation for staff.

Peter Hain: That is part of the complexity that we are having to wrestle with. I would like to make some progress now, because I think that I can help the House in the debate that is to follow.
	Even if the House were to accept amendment (g), I hope that it will reject amendment (h). I believe that it would still be helpful for the Members Estimate Committee to consider this matter thoroughly; the questions that have just been put to me underline that point.
	On the question of information technology provision, paragraph 3 provides that, with effect from the beginning of the next Parliament, the level of provision of IT equipment and support be increased in line with recommendations 11 and 12 of the SSRB's report. In other words, the level of provision of IT equipment should be increased by one, so that each Member has one fixed workstation and one laptop for his or her own use, plus three further workstations, so that each full-time equivalent member of staff paid for through the staffing allowance has his or her own PC, and that each Member should also have two heavy-duty printers. The level and range of IT support offered to constituency offices should also be improved to a level comparable with that offered on the parliamentary estate.

David Taylor: I warmly welcome the two recommendations that the Leader of the House is describing. Does he accept, however, that if we are to have more remote facilities and more support from staff here and elsewhere, the network needs urgent attention to ensure that remote users of the parliamentary data and video networkthe PDVNhave an adequate service? It really is not adequate at the moment. The service in the House is not at all badI speak as someone with 30 years' experience in the world of information and communications technologybut the remote service is not adequate.

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend has raised this matter before. It is precisely for those reasons that the SSRB has recommended extra provision for a local constituency IT service comparable with that offered on the parliamentary estate, provided at local level. The House and I fully accept this recommendation, and I know that the House authorities will resource it.
	I believe that Members on both sides of the House will welcome these recommendations on IT, which reflect proposals by the Information Committee. It is important that Members, and Members' staff, should be adequately, although not lavishly, equipped to function effectively in the information age, and particularly to interact better with our constituents. The increased IT support for constituency offices should help those Members who choose to locate their staff away from the parliamentary estate.
	Paragraph 4 relates to the London supplement. It would implement the SSRB's recommendation that the London supplement should be increased from next April to 2,500, the same level as the proposed enhancement to the staffing allowance in respect of London-based staff, and that this sum should be adjusted annually in line with the average earnings index. It would also implement the SSRB's recommendation that, in future, Ministers and officeholders should be able to claim the London supplement only if they did not claim the additional costs allowance.

Mark Field: Does the Leader of the House accept that the conclusion in paragraph 4.35 that there were
	no major concerns about the London Supplement
	is odd, given that I have spoken and written to him and his predecessors about the very low level of the supplement? I was particularly disturbed to read that the report stated that
	we did not interview any MPs with inner London constituencies.
	On what basis, therefore, can it possibly conclude that the recommendation that the allowance should go up to a paltry 2,500 is credible, given that central London Members have to have a main, rather than a second, London home, when Members who claim the additional costs allowance are claiming at the rate of 20,902 a year? The methodology behind the London supplement is entirely wrong. A figure seems to have been plucked from the sky, which is one of the reasons why I tabled an amendment to the motion, although it has unfortunately not been selected.

Peter Hain: I know that the hon. Gentleman wanted to put an alternative point of view before the House. The SSRB did not just pluck the figure out of thin air, as he has implied. It is based on equivalent civil service rates. The additional costs allowance is to enable Members with constituencies outside the London area to provide a proper service and to live in their constituency, which is a central part of modern parliamentary life.
	May I make a further point in relation to what the hon. Gentleman has just said? Eight individual MPs gave evidence to the SSRB, including the Opposition deputy Chief Whip, the chair of the Labour party, the Liberal shadow Leader of the House, and many other Members of Parliament[Interruption.] The shadow Leader of the House did, toowe would not want to forget him. Of course, I gave evidence on behalf of the Government, so it is not the case that no evidence was given. More evidence could have been given, including from the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), because everybody knew the inquiry was going on.
	Paragraph (5) is to implement the SSRB's recommendations on the car mileage allowance. It provides that car mileage allowance should be payable at the same rates as the maximum car mileage rates which the Inland Revenue recognises as excluding a profit element. Car mileage will be payable at a rate of 40p per mile up to 10,000 miles and 25p per mile thereafter, instead of 57.7p per mile up to 20,000 miles and 26.6p per mile thereafter, as at present. Those rates will be adjusted automatically in line with the future changes in the Inland Revenue rates.
	In part compensation for the reduction in the mileage allowance, and also for the loss of free parking at airports, paragraph (5) makes new provision for the cost of parking a car, motor cycle or bicycle to be reimbursed
	if wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the performance of parliamentary duties.
	The Members Estimate Committee and the advisory panel on Members' allowances will be asked to approve the rules for claims. I believe that this change will be widely welcomed.

Anne Campbell: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Inland Revenue recommended rate for mileage allowance has not increased for several years? It has remained stationary.

Peter Hain: Yes, I understand that that is the case.
	I recognise that the proposed change represents a significant reduction in car mileage allowance and that this will have a significant impact on those Members who are heavily dependent on car transport, particularly those with large rural constituencies. I also recognise that the immediacy of the changesby 1 Aprilcould put some Members in real difficulties if they have entered into leasing or purchase agreements that go beyond that date.
	The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and others have quite properly tabled an amendment that would freeze the current rate until the Inland Revenue rates catch up with the House rates. That could be many years, however. The effect of the amendment is therefore firmly to reject the SSRB recommendation, which I have put before the House.

Nicholas Winterton: I am putting this marker down now while a number of Members are present. The Inland Revenue rate seems to fail entirely to take into account, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, the size of a constituency and the need for a Member to use his car in that large area to undertake constituency duties. There is no difference between an inner-city seat and a large urban seat, which surely is grotesquely unfair. It could be a disincentive to Members properly and fully undertaking constituency duties and, in some cases, travelling to London when there is not adequate public transport to enable them to do so.

Peter Hain: I know the points that the hon. Gentleman is making. I dare say his constituents and mine would want to make the same points if they travelled a lot on business, but may I make this point? Some Members feel that the Inland Revenue rates are too low to reflect the true costs of motoring. The Government do not accept that. The 40p rate, which was set in the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, covers the full costs of using a car for business travel for a wide range of types and size of car, including cars that are safe and comfortable for long business journeys. It is advantageous to drivers of small, environmentally friendly cars. It has been set at a level that will not subsidise all the standing costs of owning a larger, more fuel-hungry car, so that it does not encourage drivers of larger cars to drive unnecessary business miles. It is, however, still generous enough fully to cover the marginal running costs of such cars.
	In any case, if the House feels that the Inland Revenue rates are inadequate, that is an argument for reviewing those rates, not for diverging from them. I hope that the House will reject the amendment.

Nick Harvey: The Leader of the House has just referred to what the Inland Revenue reckons that 40p covers, which is the marginal cost of using the vehicle, whereas our current motor mileage allowance purports to cover the capital cost of the vehicle as well, so we are considering two fundamentally different things. What is being proposed is a change of policy dressed up as a recalibration of some comparative figures. If we are to debate what is being proposed, we should do so with our eyes open, rather than confuse two completely different things.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but the SSRB has considered this in the round and considered what applies to our constituents, saying that we should be treated in the same way as they are. That is what it is arguing.
	The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), by contrast, has tabled an amendment that would strike out the proposal to allow hon. Members to claim for parking charges. While I sympathise with his wish to encourage the use of other forms of transport, the fact is that many hon. Members rely on cars in their constituencies and for at least part of their journey to and from this place. That point was made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield.
	A problem has arisen in respect of the withdrawal of free car parking provision by BAA, as a result of shareholder action. That has placed a lot of Members of the House who rely on air transport in Scotland, north-west and north-east England and elsewhere in real difficulty, because if they have to leave their cars for the best part of a week a huge additional cost is incurred. I would point out that the provision that we recommend applies to motor cycles and bicycles as well as to cars.

Norman Baker: I have looked through the SSRB report and I can find no recommendation relating to parking. Have I missed it or is it a subsequent invention as part of the motion?

Peter Hain: I think the hon. Gentleman has missed it. If he looks more carefully, he will see it.

Patrick McLoughlin: On the parking issue, previously there was deemed to be an element of profit in the motor mileage allowance. That was one reason for deciding that no allowance should be made when congestion charging was introduced. If we accept this proposal for parking, should not we also accept it for congestion charging if the profit element has gone from the motor mileage allowance?

Peter Hain: The Inland Revenue does not provide for congestion charging to be met in such a way. I should say to the hon. Member for Lewes that if the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Macclesfield is carried, I will recommend that we support it, because built into the costs of the mileage rate of the House of Commons is provision to meet such costs. For example, if I travel across the Severn bridge I pay a toll. I do not think that that should be provided for by the House authorities, because the mileage rate is fairly generous. The same applies to parking.

John Butterfill: The Inland Revenue figure is for the calculation of tax liability; it is not said that a higher allowance should not be paid by an employer. Simply, if an allowance is given above that figure, it is taxable. That is already the case with Members' existing allowanceit is taxable above 40p. That is a matter for the Inland Revenue to decide, but the fact that this does not accurately reflect modern costs of running a motor car is well known throughout the nation. The AA says that, as do all the motor car magazines that publish the costs of running a motor car. The Inland Revenue point has nothing to do with the real cost of running a car, but it relates to a threshold for taxation.

Peter Hain: There is a lot of substance to the hon. Gentleman's argument, but the public in our constituencies are treated by the Inland Revenue in a certain way. [Hon. Members: So are we!] Well, we are not, because we get a higher rate than is generally given. Anyway, this is ultimately[Interruption.] Look, I understand the concerns. For goodness' sake, I acknowledged the concerns earlier by saying that Iunderstand the points that are being made, particularly the sharp change [Interruption.] Hon. Members ask why I am proposing what I am proposing. It would be a serious departure if the Leader of the House did not put before the House recommendations from the SSRB.
	It is for the House to decide what it wishes to decidethat is our sovereign rightbut asking an independent body such as the SSRB to look at this dispassionately and then not putting its proposals before the House would be a serious breach with tradition and practice in respect of independent advice from such a body.

John Greenway: The fact that there is a tension between the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes and that tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, which I have supported, shows that the review body's recommendation does not suit all hon. Members. Despite the fact that we could have been consulted on the matter, this recommendation has come to many of us as a complete surprise, out of the blue. It is grossly unfair to those of us with large rural constituencies some distance from London. I agree that the provision can be unfair to people who have to use airports, but surely the matter should be referred back to the Members Estimate Committee if the amendment is not carried.

Peter Hain: I understand that point, but I have an obligation to put before the House recommendations from the SSRB. It would be a serious breach of practice adopted by previous Leaders of the House were that not done.
	I will now take what must be the final intervention.

Mark Lazarowicz: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when Members vote on the matter they should bear it in mind that it is difficult to explain to the public why we are prepared to accept SSRB recommendations when they increase our pay and allowances, but not so keen to accept them when they lead to a reduction? Without wishing to be pious, does he agree that at a time when every party talks about the need to combat climate change, we should at least set some example in relation to the mileage for which we claim and the vehicles that we operate?

Peter Hain: Yes, I do. I speak as someone with a large constituency, with large rural areas, who must necessarily incur large constituency mileage in going about my parliamentary duties.
	The proposed provision for the reimbursement of parkingfor parliamentary duties onlywill be fully justified if the House agrees to reduce the mileage allowance as the SSRB has recommended. If the House rejects amendment (c), I hope that it will also reject amendment (i). If the House agrees to amendment (c), however, I shall support amendment (i), and I hope that the House will also do so. That is because the existing car mileage rates include an element to cover parking charges. Amendment (c) on its own would allow double reimbursement for parking costs.

Ian Davidson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Peter Hain: I am sorry but I must stick to what I said earlier; otherwise, like a parent with aI will not continue with that line of thought. [Laughter.]
	Paragraph (6) deals with the incidental expenses provision. The SSRB's report recommends that the provision be increased to a maximum of 27,500, and that the amount that may be claimed by Members should be abated by 7,500 for each permanent workstation occupied by their staff on the parliamentary estate. As the SSRB acknowledges, this recommendation could involve a significant reorganisation of current office arrangements for many Members, or else a significant loss of income. The SSRB states that it would understand were the House to conclude that the recommendation should apply only to new Members and that certain transitional arrangements should operate for currently serving Members. The Government believe that it would be appropriate for the Members Estimate Committee to give further consideration to this matter, particularly in the light of the points raised during this debate and the strong views expressed.
	I fully support the principle behind the SSRB's recommendationwe must take steps to relieve pressure on the parliamentary estate, and we must address the current disincentives discouraging Members from basing their staff in constituency officesbut there are a number of other factors to take into account, which the SSRB was not able to address: security, for example, and the administration of House services. The Members Estimate Committee will be able to consider the various factors in the round.
	On parliamentary pensions, the SSRB has made two recommendations. I am grateful to the trustees and their chairman for their work on this matter. Before I examine the matter, I want to say on behalf of the House how indebted we are to those Members who serve as our trustees. They have important and wide-ranging duties and responsibilities, and I would like to record my particular thanks to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) and his fellow trustees for their continued excellent service in running our pension scheme.
	The second motion before the House is to implement the SSRB recommendation that the contribution rate for those scheme members who have opted for their pension to build up at a rate of one fortieth of final salary for each year of service should increase from 9 per cent. to 10 per cent. It may be recalled that in 2002, the SSRB recommended that, in the first instance, the contribution rate of members who opted for the one-fortieth accrual rate should increase to 9 per cent. It recommended that the remaining cost of the benefit improvement should be taken into account in subsequent reviews of pay and allowances. That would mean that eventually the full cost of implementation would be borne by Members on an ongoing basis. The Government accepted that recommendation.
	The SSRB has now considered the options for recovering the remaining cost. It has concluded that it would be unfair to restrict future pay increases for all Members irrespective of whether they had opted for the one-fortieth accrual rate. It has instead recommended that the contribution rate for those who opted for the improved accrual rate should increase by 1 per cent. from 1 April 2004. It considers that an appropriate step towards recovering the full cost. The SSRB remains of the view that the full cost of the benefit improvement should in due course be borne by Members on an ongoing basis. It intends to take the outstanding amount into account in its next review of parliamentary pay and allowances.
	The Government are content with the SSRB's recommendation to phase the recovery of the additional cost and believe that it should be implemented. If the House agrees, I understand that the trustees would propose that the collection of arrears back to 1 April this year should be spread over the balance of the current tax year, so that Members are not saddled suddenly with a huge bill. The Government are happy with that approach.
	The SSRB has recommended that the trustees should decide what action to take on the recommendations outstanding from its 2001 report. The main outstanding recommendations relate to the extension of survivor benefits to unmarried partners and the introduction of pensions for life for surviving widows and widowers. The Government's policy is that such benefit improvements could be introduced only if Members are prepared to meet the additional costs. That is consistent with our line on other public service schemes. In 2001, the House expressed its view rightly that survivor benefits should apply to unmarried partners as well as spouses. I have therefore been in discussion with the trustees about how those important provisions can be introduced in a way that is fair to Members and to the taxpayer. The issue of civil partners is slightly different. It is expected that the scheme will be amended to provide benefits for surviving civil partners, and that any additional costs arising from that will be met by the Exchequer.
	The Government have noted the observation made by the SSRB in its report that phasing out the favourable early retirement terms in the scheme would be consistent with the Government's policy on public service pension age and might make possible benefit improvements as part of a package. The Government therefore feel that this represents a sensible way forward. The additional cost of providing pensions to partners and not just spouses can therefore be offset and remain cost-neutral by implementing the new retirement provisions.

Ian Davidson: Given that the Leader of the House and several of his Government colleagues have said on a number of occasions that they wish that a variety of hon. Members would go away, is not this change inconsistent, as it makes it less likely that they will do so?

Peter Hain: I do not remember any such recommendation from me unless it was in respect of Conservative Members of Parliament. It would be good to see more Labour Members of Parliament in the House. [Laughter.] I am not going down that road, either.
	The Government's policy on pension age, first announced in the 2002 pensions Green Paper, is that the rules of public service schemes should be changed to make an unreduced pension payable from age 65 rather than 60.

Andrew Miller: A uniquely separate set of circumstances applies to Members of Parliament compared with other public sector workers: the trigger dates for our choices are not in our hands but in the hands of the Prime Minister. I note that the motion says that the scheme will be
	phased out for existing members from 1st April 2009.
	I see nothing in the Command Paper that defines the methodology in that regard. Will that be subject to a separate resolution, and will there be consultation with the trustees?

Peter Hain: There will certainly be consultation with the trustees. I have already discussed the matter with their chairman. There will not be a separate motion; this motion will decide the matter.
	All Members are to be allowed to draw pension before the age of 65 on an actuarially neutral basis, not just those with at least 15 years' service. Those who have at least 15 years' service on 31 March 2009 will continue to be eligible for early retirement terms which are more favourable than actuarially neutral. Those who serve beyond 1 April 2009 will not have access to an unreduced pension before the pension age of 65.

Andrew Miller: So it will not be phased out, as the motion says; it will be ended. Perhaps the motion should be amended accordingly.

Peter Hain: The end date is 2009 or the general election after next, whichever is the later.

Andrew Miller: That is not phasing.

Peter Hain: It is. I am sure my hon. Friend will understand this. Each individual Member is in a different position owing to differences in age and length of service, so this provision affects them in different ways. I could give various examples, including that of my own position, if that is of any interest.

Mike Gapes: Is there not an important difference between introducing changes that affect new Members and introducing changes that affect many Members, including me, in a way that does not involve a right to vote on it as a separate item, and puts us in an invidious position? We will have to vote something down in order to defend our own position, because we can see the difficulties that it will cause us by forcing us either to go very early or to stay until we are about 67. This has not been thought through clearly. Can my right hon. Friend please look at it again?

Peter Hain: I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend, with whom I have a long-standing friendship, that he should study the detail. His position will not be prejudiced, except in one respect.
	We are seeking to bring the House of Commons in line with civil servants and other public sector workers, including my hon. Friend's constituents. We are here by permission of the electorate. There is a real problem if we are saying that because of the ageing society and the cost of providing pensions at the taxpayer's expensewhich applies in our case as wellwe should have fantastically more advantageous pension conditions than our constituents who work in the public sector. We are trying to bring the Government's changes in line with demographic factors affecting the country.

John Butterfill: May I explain why phasing out is, in my view, an appropriate term? The changes will come into force gradually. As from this November, new Members will no longer be entitled to the early retirement provision. Existing Members will continue to be entitled to the provision until 2009 and possibly beyond, depending on the date of the general election. Some Members who are re-elected after the next general election will continue to be entitled to the existing arrangements, even possibly until the following general election, so it is a phasing process. The motion will enable the trustees to change the rules of the scheme to allow all this to be put in place.

Peter Hain: The lucidity of the hon. Gentleman's intervention explains why he is chairman of the trustees and, perhaps, why I am not.
	The point isI think the whole House will understand this, and back itthat the Government are phasing out generous early retirement provisions in the public sector. It would be inconsistent, and would not be understood by our constituents, if we exempted ourselves from these provisions. We must be careful not to cause our own voters to think we are putting ourselves in an extremely privileged position.
	The pension age in the parliamentary scheme is already 65, but Members with at least 15 years' service can retire early before that age on favourable terms. Those terms include the ability, often referred to as the rule of 80, to draw unreduced benefits if they retire earlybetween the ages of 60 and 65provided that age plus service totals at least 80.
	The third motion proposes a package addressing the issues relating to survivor benefits and early retirement. It would be at least cost-neutral to the Exchequer, which is an important requirement. It proposes the introduction of pensions for surviving unmarried partners of existing active Members, calculated on the same basis as pensions for widows and widowers. I am sure that that will be widely welcomed, as it is in line with the decision already made by the House in principle.
	The trustees and the Government Actuary would be involved in working out the detailed implementation of the package, as was mentioned by the chairman of the trustees. In the case of survivor pensions that would include, for example, consideration of what constitutes an eligible partner, and measures to ensure that the provisions remain affordable.
	The motion proposes that pensions for widows, widowers and surviving partners of existing active Members should be payable for life, and not cease on remarriage or cohabitation as widow and widower pensions do at present. That is an anomaly, which we are correcting. It also proposes that the favourable early retirement terms should be removed for new Members immediately, and phased outI insist that that is the correct termfor existing Members from 1 April 2009 or the day after the general election after next, whichever is the later.
	That means that anyone retiring at the next general election will not be affected. Nor will anyone retiring at the general election after that. Indeed, by 2009 nearly half of us48 per centwill be able to retire immediately and draw our pensions without any reduction. We will either be over 65 or will have served for more than 20 years, and will qualify for unreduced benefits under the rule of 80. A further 17 per cent of usincluding me, as it happenswill either be able to retire then and draw our pensions on better than actuarially neutral terms, or have the potential to do so when we are older.

Clive Betts: First, will my right hon. Friend spell out more clearly the nature of the residual benefit that will remain after 2009? I do not entirely understandperhaps other Members do not eitherwhat will happen to those who retain some potential benefit under the existing scheme. Will it go completely after 2009, or will it continue in some form?
	Secondly, does my right hon. Friend accept what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller)? There is a difference between Members of Parliament and those in other schemes. We cannot go on our 65th birthdays; we have to go on the date of the general election. If people cannot go with reduced pensions before they are 65, my right hon. Friend is effectively saying that the average retirement age of MPs is 67 or 68.

Peter Hain: These are complex matters. We already have generous pensions by most people's standards: the whole House will agree with that. It would be very dangerous if we did not put ourselves in line with the retirement provisions that now apply to other public sector workers, let alone those with much less favourable terms.
	Let me give some examples of how the arrangements would work. On 31 March 2009, a Member aged 54 who has served for 13.6 years will have given over 15 years' service but will not meet the rule of 80. That Member will be able to draw pension before 65 on favourable terms, but not on an unreduced basis. Let us consider the position of a 1987 entrant who, as of 3 November 2004todayis aged 55 and has 17.4 years' service. As of March 2009, they will meet the rule of 80 and will be able to draw pension immediately on an unreduced basis, so the scheme will continue. As of March 2009, an older, 1992 entrantaged 59, for examplewith 12.6 years' service will meet the rule of 80 and will be able to draw pension immediately on an unreduced basis. As of March 2009, a younger 1992 entrant, aged 43, with 12.5 years' service, will have more than 15 years' service but will not meet the rule of 80. They will, however, be able to draw pension before 65 on favourable terms, but not on an unreduced basis. So it is not the case that Members will suddenly fall over the edge and get no benefit at all; rather, it is a question of providing for these changes in a proper fashion.
	Finally, I note the SSRB's observation that it will be for the Government, in conjunction with the trustees, to consider the implications of the new pension tax regime. The Finance Act 2004 sets out a much-simplified tax treatment of pensions, and I can confirm that that will apply to the parliamentary pension scheme. The Government look forward to working with the trustees on its detailed implementation. I urge the House to vote for these motions, especially those relating to pensions. It is very important that we bring our own practice in line with outside practice, and that we preserve our own conditions in the way that I described. I reiterate the Government's thanks to the SSRB for conducting this triennial review. A respected independent body has recommended certain changes to our allowances and pension arrangements, and I hope that the House will agree to their implementation in the way that I described.

Oliver Heald: The Senior Salaries Review Body's triennial review is an important piece of work, and I, too, would like to thank John Baker, the chairman of the SSRB, and its other members, who have clearly worked hard to produce that report. The SSRB has done its work conscientiously for many years, and it is vital that information such as this be placed in the public arena.
	In all parts of the House and in the country, it is recognised that Members need services such as staff, postage, transport, and personal and office accommodation, in order to do the job effectively on behalf of their constituents, many of whom come to them for help when they have been turned away elsewhere, or when they have been unsuccessful in their struggle against a particular bureaucracy. We speak often about connecting Parliament with the public, and it is imperative that parliamentarians maintain, and be seen to maintain, the highest standards of probity and adherence to the principles of public life. But it also should not be forgotten that we do a vital job, and that when our constituents most need help, they come to us.
	The work and independence of the SSRB has been important in providing the public with an element of reassurance about our accountability. Members of Parliament were first paid in 1911, and our pay levels have always been controversial, primarily because we are one of the few groups with the power to set our own salaries. The mechanism for mitigating this is, and has been since 1970, the objective assessment of a body that is independent and outside Parliament: the SSRB.
	Since that time, the SSRB's terms of reference have been revised on several occasions. The development of its role is welcome, but I still feel that there is scope for making the setting of parliamentary salaries more independent, and in particular for finding firm employment comparators for Membersand sticking to them.
	On allowances, I welcome the fact that more of the services necessary to Members are being provided centrally by the House authorities. That has already happened with computers, and such an approach is being tested with the travelcard. The move towards pay scales for staff is a further important step in the right direction. However, I have a concern that seems to be shared in all parts of the House, and I wonder whether you also share it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The SSRB compares us to chief executives of councils and businesses. Such people employ private secretaries, and their costs are treated as something that a council or company would necessarily provide. Nobody ever talks about them receiving expenses or allowances in that regard; such things are treated as the tools of the job, not a perk. So I hope that on another day, we can discuss how these matters might be better presented in future.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful point, and it might help his case if I remind him that the comparators that the SSRB uses for Members are in fact head teachers of middle-ranking secondary schools and police superintendents. I perhaps wish that it did use the comparator of chief executives of local authorities.

Oliver Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If he looks a little further into the report, he will see that the managing director of a business is treated as one of our comparators in the private sector, as is a particular local authority grade.

Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend mentioned earlier the supplying of computers. The current situation is wholly inadequate, so will he draw attention to recommendation 12 in the report? It states:
	We recommend that the level and range of IT support offered to constituency offices should be improved to a level compatible with that offered on the Parliamentary Estate.
	If Members are to find any way of locating in their constituencies, acting on that recommendation is one of the most important things to do. At the moment, there is a very long way to go, so will he emphasise that that recommendation needs to be implemented?

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend makes the point about IT very well. He and I both gave evidence to the review, which focused on the position of Members with outside offices and the need for more help. When we considered the incidental expenses provision, we were looking for an element of help for those with offices outside Westminster, and the complexities and difficulties associated with the SSRB's recommendations are something that we will have to contend with.
	On this year's recommendations, I want to thank the Leader of the House for discussing with me the form of his main motion. Of course, these are free-vote matters, but I feel able to offer him a strong measure of support. The pensions changes reflect the SSRB's views and the increased cost of providing parliamentary pensions, and they ensure that the main burden is not placed on the taxpayer. That seems non-controversial, and I want to pay tribute to the trustees of the parliamentary scheme, and particularly to its chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill). They have taken the trouble to do so much in terms of training and talking to Members about these issues; indeed, he offered an admirable explanation of the various changes a few minutes ago. The examples that the Leader of the House gave show that such changes are being phased in, and they certainly reflect what is happening in the civil service. I also accept that the salary rate should not increase above inflation.
	I accept the motion on Members' allowances, which reflects the SSRB's thinking. However, the recommendations on incidental expenses provision seem over-complex, creating as they do four levels of payment and a six-and-a-half-year transitional period. I am sure that further reflection would be worth while.
	I agree with the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) that the report seems to contain a large number of references to Officers of the House giving evidence and guidance to the SSRB. It is important that we recognise that, much as we admire their work, they have never run a constituency or party office. Their guidance should be taken into account, but it should not be regarded as the final word on the subject. The principle that those who have an office outside Westminster incur extra costs in providing the services available to Members here seems correct, but establishing non-eligibility to the new payment by reference to how many workstations a Member has seems problematic. A simpler system that retains equality of treatment of Members, but which allows a Member to use part of his salaries budget towards office costs outside London, might well be the way forward. That would also avoid an increase in the incidental expenses provision, while giving an extra element of flexibility within the same envelope. The costs involved should be relatively neutral.
	Although there has been some talk of a cost to the House authorities if the change goes through, I do not believe that it is based on any researchI understand that it is notand it seems to me that unless it has some behavioural effect that has not been described, it should be a relatively neutral proposal. I would like to hear what hon. Members have to say, but I am inclined to support the proposal.
	The Leader of the House was right to say that amendment (h) may, on reflection, be unnecessary and it may be worth my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) thinking more about whether it is necessary. It may be right for the Members Estimate Committee to look further into it.

Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend not accept that the ability of a Member of Parliament to employ two people within the Palace of Westminster should be entirely acceptable? I have one and a half members of staff here and have done for many years; the half member of staff is shared with my wife. We have one suite of offices and two members of staff in the office between our two individual offices. There should be no disincentive to havingquite legitimatelyone secretary and one assistant or researcher. Surely there should be no disincentive to having that level of staffing for a Member of Parliament?

Oliver Heald: I agree with my hon. Friend and I also feel that it is right for an MP to be able to decide how to run his office within a reasonable band of options.

Mark Field: Given that my hon. Friend is on the Members Estimate Committee, will he pay some attention to the points that I made earlier to the Leader of the House about the particular strains that inner London Members would face if there were to be an abatement of provision? Will he do his best to ensure that inner London Members and those who do not claim the additional costs allowance and are assumed to have single base will be exempt from any abatement provision?

Oliver Heald: That point is probably best considered in the context of a more detailed report that my hon. Friend could present not only to me as shadow Leader of the House but to the Speaker's Panel, which plays an important role in advising on matters connected with pay and allowances. That would be the best way forward for my hon. Friend and his important points.

Ann Widdecombe: My hon. Friend will be aware that my amendment (d) has not been selected, despite gaining 51 Members in support within a couple of hours of being tabled. I am sad about that. My amendment simply said that in referring the matter back to the Members Estimate Committee, we should express the opinion as a House that it is reasonable to employ two members of staff at Westminster. My hon. Friend has just said that he agrees with that, so does he also agree not only that it is reasonable, but that it is the House's view that the Members Estimate Committee should take it into account?

Oliver Heald: Yes, as I said, but I also believe in a neater approach rather than having so many different rates of IEP, which is the product of the system of abatements. I think that a proposal such as amendment (g) offers a simpler way of proceeding. My preference is to leave the decision with MPs and to have as simple a system as we can. I certainly believe that having four different rates of IEP and a transitional arrangement that creates another four rates of IEP for the next Parliament is not a satisfactory way forward. Having said that, the simple point that the SSRB was trying to reflect in its suggestionsthat there should be some extra help for people who have offices outside Londonis a good one. Indeed I, my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) and the Leader of the House himself made that point in evidence to the SSRB. In translating SSRB support for the concept into a practical solution, there might have been room for a simpler proposal.

Jonathan Sayeed: rose

Anne Campbell: rose

Oliver Heald: Gosh, an embarras de richesses. I shall give way to my hon. Friend first.

Jonathan Sayeed: At some stage during his speech, will my hon. Friend explain to the House why, when we have built a very large and very expensive new office building, we are running out of space and need these proposals? Can he offer the House any figures about how many staff, Officers of the House and so forth are on the parliamentary estate and do not necessarily need to be based here?

Oliver Heald: As far as Members are concerned, I think I am right in saying that there about 2,500 passes issued for them and their teams. The report refers to about 900, who I assume are paid staff, so there is quite a difference between the number of paid staff on the estate and the number of pass holders. As regards the establishment of the House authorities, I do not have the figures to hand, but we should pay tribute to the staff of the House for the work that they do to support us. Personally, I would not want to criticise them in any way, which I hope meets the point.

Anne Campbell: I would like to refer to the hon. Gentleman's implied support for amendment (g). He will recall that, a few years ago, staff salary allowances and incidental expenses were not separate. We had an office cost allowance out of which everything was paid. There were reasons for changing from that system to a separate system of staff salaries. It was thought that many members of staff were not being properly paid and did not have proper terms and conditions. I believe that the changes introducedthe Members advisory panel was instrumental in making the recommendationshave had a major beneficial effect on staff pay and conditions in the House. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that amendment (g) takes us back to where we were before those changes were made?

Oliver Heald: I hope to persuade the hon. Lady. I agree totally that we should have an IEP that provides for the physical costs of an office outside the House and certain other expenses, and that the salaries budget should be separate from it. She will recall that it is possible to use part of the IEP to subsidise staff salaries. That might apply to Members who have an operation in London where staff costs are more expensive.
	I believe that amendment (g) provides similar flexibility, applying to Members who might have lower staff costs outside Londonthe salary scales reflect thatbut want to use part of it to subsidise the higher costs of providing an office outside London. It provides an element of equality between the two allowances and means that Members can have the same allowances, which is very important in the context of publishing the allowances. We should not have different rates of allowances if the public are going to see them published: they must be on an even basis. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that making the change will not weaken the principle at all.

Michael Spicer: Further to what my hon. Friend is saying, is it not also the case that up to 25 per cent. of the staff budget can already be used for consultancy purposes and for buying services? The flexibility already exists.

Oliver Heald: Yes, that is a strong point that supports my position.
	On amendment (c), which deals with car mileage allowance, it is hard to avoid the logic of the SSRB recommendation that we should receive equality with our constituents. Although I accept the SSRB proposals, I look forward to hearing the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir   Nicholas Winterton) and others and to seeing how they advance their case. Different circumstances may apply in different constituencies and in different parts of the UK. I will listen carefully to what my hon. Friend has to say, as I always do, and see how much support his arguments gain in the House today.
	A crucial element of greater openness has been the detail provided about how Members' allowances are spent and the new publication of those details, which was handled very efficiently by the staff of the House. The old system lacked the necessary transparency and did not provide full information to the public. The publication of allowances has shown that MPs are generally providing a good service and that they need help to do so. I am sure that both sides of the House will join me in that view. Subject to the qualifying points that I have made, I shall support the motions before us today. We should back the recommendations of the review body.
	I would have supported the amendment on pooled research facilities, and I hope that it is possible for that issue to be dealt with in some way in the future. It seems wrong that a shared researcher should be treated differently from a person who works directly to an hon. Member. I hope that some consideration can be given to that.
	Of course, I shall monitor the strength of support for the various amendments to see whether a compelling case can be made for changes to the Government's plans. I am sure that we will have an interesting and reasoned debate, and I have kept my remarks reasonably brief as I know that many hon. Members want to contribute.

Chris Smith: I want to concentrate on the SSRB's recommendation on incidental expenses, and especially on the question of abatement for those who have staff here in the House. I have no personal interest in this matter: I am standing down at the next election, so I will not benefit from or be disadvantaged by the proposals. However, I have a very strong interest in ensuring that my successorwhoever he or she isand those of my colleagues who also represent London seats will not be severely disadvantaged by those proposals.
	I shall make five very brief points. First, the proposals in the SSRB report will severely affect those hon. Members with existing staff who have always been based in the parliamentary estate. That is despite, but in some ways because of, the recommendation for a transitional period. The staff to whom I refer have been employed on the basis that this is their place of work. If, even after a period of one Parliament, this place ceases to be their place of work, the SSRB recommendation would amount to a serious change in their terms and conditions of work and could well mean that they have to terminate their employment.
	Although having a transitional period is better than imposing such a change immediately, I am not sure that it is sensible for us to create what, in effect, is two tiers of membership of this House. Under the recommendations, some hon. Members would be able to have more staff here, and some would not. That does not strike me as terribly sensible.
	Secondly, the provisions in the SSRB report will be very difficult for those hon. Members who represent constituencies in London, but especially so for those with inner-London constituencies. As the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) noted, establishing a constituency office in the City, Islington or Holborn costs much more than it does in many other parts of the country outside London. To assume that the same constituency office allowance will apply both in London and outside it takes no account of the differences in costs, prices, rent and so forth.
	Many hon. Members with inner-London constituencies face an especially heavy constituency case load. I have been in this House for twenty-one and a half years. In all that time I have not used any of the allowances available to me to employ any researchers because I have had to devote all my resources to employing people to work on my constituency case load. At present, the number of cases in connection with immigration and asylum is very large for hon. Members with inner-city constituenciesand especially so for those in inner Londonbut the allowance system does not recognise the additional costs that those hon. Members incur.
	Nothing in either the present or the proposed systems recognises the particular difficulties that face London Members. That is why I have always had my staff here in the parliamentary estate, and why I want to ensure that my successor has the same option, if he or she decides that that is in the best interests of constituents.
	Thirdly, the SSRB proposal hits permanent staff but not people such as interns or volunteers, who share workstations and do not have their own. If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the review body are worried about pressure on the parliamentary estate because of the number of people using the facilities here, I would gently suggest that the report is aiming at the wrong target. The report hits permanent staff as I have described, but ignores the pressure that arises from non-permanent staff. That seems a rather partial approach to the problem.

Ian Stewart: My right hon. Friend mentioned the use of interns and volunteers, but does he accept that the use of such people has implications for the resources of the House? They all need to be trained to use the PDVN system, and they have other training needs that take up the House's resources.

Chris Smith: My hon. Friend is right, but I hasten to make it clear that I am not suggesting that it should not be possible to employ interns or volunteers. However, if we are taking a serious look at the pressure on the House's resources, we must accept that the problem is very complex. To assume that the SSRB recommendation is the only answer would be to ignore that complexity.
	My fourth point is simple and blunt. Although it does not apply to me, I suspect that it will apply to some of my colleagues, especially those representing seats in London. If implemented, the proposals will involve redundancies among existing staff. That is not something that should be considered lightly, and I am not sure that the SSRB has taken account of the costs involved.

Ann Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman is taking us through this minefield in an exemplary fashion, but does he agree that the recommendation means that some of the most experienced members of staff would lose their jobs? They are the ones who have permanent workstations, and they have been kept here because of their knowledge.

Chris Smith: The right hon. Lady is right. I confess that I can imagine saying that only in very rare circumstances, but she is absolutely correct on this point.

Norman Baker: And on hunting.

Chris Smith: And on hunting, as the hon. Gentleman says.
	My fifth point is perhaps the most important. In seeking to remove one perceived discrimination between hon. Members, the SSRB is in danger of inserting another. Its report seeks to help those hon. Members with constituency offices outside the parliamentary estate, but in doing so it would cause serious harm and difficulty to those hon. Membersand especially to those London Memberswith offices and staff on the parliamentary estate. I suggest that, instead of removing one discrimination and creating another, the solution is to help the one category of hon. Member without harming the other.
	That is why I shall support amendment (g). I believe that it offers an effective way of ensuring that we provide further support and assistance to those hon. Members with constituency-based offices so that they can run them properly and effectively.
	The amendment makes sense, however, only if the incidental expenses provisions are left as they arenot enhanced and not abated. If the amendment is passed, I hope that will be the spirit in which the matter is approached. If it goes to the Members Estimate Committee, I hope that the Committee will take into account the concerns that I and many Members on both sides of the House have expressed.

Peter Hain: With the shadow Leader of the House and some other Members, I am a member of the Committee, so perhaps I can offer my right hon. Friend some comfort by assuring him that we will certainly take close heed of the points that he and other Members have forcefully made.

Chris Smith: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for saying that. I would have expected no less from such an exemplary Leader of the House, but I hope that these serious issues will be considered carefully and that the rather simplistic approach that the review body proposesalbeit to achieve a sensible and fair purposewill not be seen as the right way forward.

Oliver Heald: The Members Estimate Committee will take very seriously the points that the right hon. Gentleman is making and will ensure that they are adequately reflected in our discussions.
	May I also say that I did not know that the right hon. Gentleman was retiring? We shall all miss him.

Chris Smith: That event will occur only when the Prime Minister decides that the time is right for an election, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks.

Mark Field: I am aware that many Members want to speak, so rather than make a speech myself I endorse all that the right hon. Gentleman said about the concerns of London Members. All too often, Members with country seats, perhaps especially in my party, do not understand the burdens to which he referred. In my constituency, which is very like his, there are not only 70,000 electors but 40,000 non-UK nationals. I have 600 live asylum and immigration cases, which puts an intolerable burden not so much on me but on the large number of staff I am required to employ. I endorse the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, as well as those of the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), who spoke forcefully on the matter earlier.

Chris Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right. The issues are common to all of us who represent London seats. The pressure is great and it has increased during the whole 21-year period I have been a Member.

Stephen Pound: My right hon. Friend may be choosing to leave the House at the next election but no one could ever describe him as retiring.
	On this occasion, my right hon. Friend speaks, as ever, for London, but is he as bemused as I am at a circumstance in which a review body on senior salaries appears to be concerning itself with staff deployment? If there is a problem with staff in the House, should not that be considered in isolation, rather than being spatchcocked into the SSRB report, which will have the most disastrous consequences for people such as my right hon. Friend and me who do not have a constituency office but try to give constituents the best possible service from an office in the Palace?

Chris Smith: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I am sorry that amendment (d) was not selected, as that would have enabled the House as a whole to give a clear indication of what we regard as a reasonable level for staff based in Westminster. That would not have taken account of the particular problems for London Members, but it would have enabled us to give a general view. As I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, Members, rather than the SSRB, must ultimately decide these matters.
	I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and the Members Estimate Committee will take those points on board if and when they consider these matters. They are serious matters; they affect the standard and quality of the service that we give our constituents.

Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your help? The debate has just over an hour to run, but Members whose amendments were selected have not yet made a contribution. Will you make a plea to Members to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Otherwise, there will be no formal presentation of the amendments that Mr. Speaker selected?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not sure that it is exactly correct to say that hon. Members who tabled amendments have so far made no contribution to the debatethat is perhaps why the opening speech from the Leader of the House was so long. However, the hon. Gentleman correctly observes that there is a limited amount of time available, so the Chair will do its best to accommodate as many Members as possiblebut their comments must be brief.

Paul Tyler: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). I listened to him with great care and agree with every word he said. I am not a member of the Members Estimate Committee but I hope that it has taken seriously the issues he raised. I have a particular point of agreement with him, as I, too, can declare a non-interest in most of the matters before us, because I am due to retire at the next general election, which looks as though it will be sooner rather than later.
	I want to refer to the principles behind the SSRB report. I accept that it is vital to preserve the principle that our package of remuneration and reimbursement of costs is assessed by an external, independent, authoritative body, just as monitoring and authenticating it is in the hands of rigorous auditing arrangements in the House. However, an equally important principle is that the body must have access to the fullest possible information about the work of parliamentarians. It has become increasingly apparent this afternoon that the SSRB has not been operating on the basis of intelligent analysis of the real work of parliamentarians. Indeed, it has, to a considerable extent, misunderstood the work we do in this place.
	The emphasis of the report, especially the elaborate and convoluted section on office costs and the salaries of our staff, seems to suggest that MPs must be encouraged to concentrate our work in our constituencies. We are already under attack for neglecting our core role as parliamentariansas scrutineers of the Government's legislative programme and of Executive action. If anything were to encourage the media and the public to think of us as overpaid and under-trained social workers, it would be the recommendations of the report, which would push things in that direction. That is a basic misunderstanding of our role in this place.
	Within obvious limits, I insist that every Member of the House has the right and responsibility to serve the country and their constituents in whatever way he or she thinks most effective and appropriate. That is critical to the way in which Parliament operates. I fear, as is already apparent from the comments of several Members, that the SSRB does not understand that that is our role.

Nick Harvey: The Leader of the House fairly made the point that Members had the opportunity to give evidence to the SSRB, but, if we were broadly content with things as they were, there was no incentive to do so; only now that we have seen what the SSRB proposes is there any reason for us to comment. Bodies such as the boundary commissions consult after they make their initial proposals. There is more concern about the current SSRB report than ever before, so we must consider the future and ensure that there is a second round of consultation on its proposals before they are signed off; otherwise, we shall be put in the embarrassing position of having to repudiate the recommendations, which we do not want to do.

Paul Tyler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, to which I want to return. As someone who gave evidence to the SSRB, I can speak with authority; there was no evidence from any Member of the House on the vital issue of our role. Nor, as far as I can establish, was there any evidence on mileage. As far as I am aware, no Member of the House gave evidence on those issues.

Tony McWalter: I commend the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but I wish to point out that it is extraordinarily difficult to acquire knowledge about the role of an MP. All our constituencies have hugely different problems and we use our personality and judgment to interact with our constituencies in very different ways. The current rules give us a lot of scope to exercise our judgment, but this report gives usin my view and, I hope, that of the hon. Gentlemanfar less scope to take decisions that will benefit our constituents.

Paul Tyler: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. The diversity in the way in which we operate is the result of our very diverse constituencies.

Ian Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Tyler: No, because I want to make progress. I know that other Members wish to contribute to the debate.
	I wish to refer to a point that the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury made. It is not an answer to deal with one distortion by introducing another. Two wrongs do not make a right. However, I am afraid that is the whole basis on which the SSRB has approached the issue of staffing.
	We should all examine carefully the way in which the SSRB has considered staffing allowances. The report refers to
	modern, high quality, fully serviced accommodation for MPs and their staff . . . available free of charge on the Parliamentary Estate in Westminster, particularly in Portcullis House.
	The SSRB then makes a leap to a value judgment. It adds:
	The present system as a whole acts as an incentive to locate staff on the Parliamentary Estate.
	That is why we built Portcullis House.
	When I first entered the House in 1974 for a very brief interlude, I had the end of a table and no phone. I had to meet my secretary somewhere down in the bowels of the earth. Therefore, to give us a proper opportunity to do our job, we in the House decidedI think with the nation's supportto improve the conditions in which our staff, and perhaps Members, operate. To refer to that as though it is a retrograde step is extraordinary and seems to go right beyond the way in which the SSRB should look at the issue. It may be that the SSRB's extended its remit itself.

Frank Dobson: The SSRB's report goes on to say:
	However none of the MPS who we met said they had actually chosen to establish office facilities or employ staff on the Parliamentary Estate for financial reasons.
	It reached conclusions that are plainly contradictory to the evidence that it took.

Paul Tyler: It is a fair point, but my basic point is that if we decide that we can provide a good service to the country as a wholewe are not just constituency Members; we are members of the UK Parliament as wellsurely we should be given some flexibility. It is extraordinary that it appears as though we will be bribed to spend less time in the facilities in which we have recently invested in this place.
	There is another more critical issue. What is the prime function of a Member of the House of Commons? What would Edmund Burke say about the suggestion that we should scatter ourselves throughout the country by spending more time with our constituents and that our staff should, too? That would mean that we would not fulfil our role in the House and such an assumption is way beyond the remit of the SSRB. As I understand it, no Member gave evidence on this issue simply because it did not arise at the time of the original review.
	Ministers might be only too happy to see some Government Back Benchers and more Opposition Members spending more time in their constituencies. I understand that the Government did not give evidence to that effect; it was given by those mysterious peoplethe authorities of the House. It is extremely important that we deal with the issues carefully and consider them in the round.
	My Liberal Democrat colleagues will have a completely unwhipped vote on the issue, but I must say that I am attracted by cross-party amendment (g). It is also probably helpful to retain what I think is paragraph 6 rather than to push amendment (h) to a conclusion. Howeverand it is an incredibly important pointif the Opposition parties are to be denied the resources to do our job in the House properly, I hope that the Government recognise that we shall have to review the Short money; otherwise we will simply be prevented from doing our job properly in holding them to account. In the long run, there will not be a reduction in the taxpayers' provision.
	I shall deal speedily with paragraphs 2 and 3 on information technology and the London supplement. They are tidying-up and sensible provisions. They may not be as generous as everyone thinks or would like to accept, but they make good progress.
	On car mileage, I recognise that some Members, especially those with large and scattered constituencies such as mine and those who have seen the value of their cars depreciate very quickly as they travel thousands and thousands of miles and way beyond what most people in our comparator occupations travel, have a valid point. Most MPs are now faced with a system that fails to assist with the capital cost of an essential working tool for our job. That is not necessarily the case with some of the comparators.
	The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) made a very important point about the tax significance of that additional sum over and above the Inland Revenue rate.

John Butterfill: Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that it is by no means clear who asked the SSRB to consider this item? In fact, I understand that the recommendation came as a shock to Ministers and the Cabinet Office. They had no idea that it was going to arise, which is why nobody gave evidence. There is just a sneaking suspicion that the provenance of this suggestion may rest with the Treasury at the instigation of the Inland Revenue.

Paul Tyler: Well, what a surprise! I am grateful for that revelation, because it encourages me in my view that the SSRB has been asked to go well outside its original terms of reference on this issue.

David Heath: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Paul Tyler: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I wish to make progress.
	As I understand it, the Inland Revenue rate was decided three or four years ago, even though it was implemented only recently. It completely fails to take into account the considerable increases in fuel costs in recent years. There is a difficulty with that.
	It may be that for quite different reasonsfor environmental policy reasons or to lead opinion on the issuethe Government recommended that there should be a change. However, I see no logic to the SSRB coming forward with the recommendation. I want a firm commitment that the Inland Revenue rate will be uprated by the time of the next Budget to take into account the additional costs before I am persuaded that the proposal is logical.

John Burnett: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Paul Tyler: I shall give way once more.

John Burnett: I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend means that if the Inland Revenue rate is uprated, that will benefit not just Members of the House but the country generally.

Paul Tyler: Of course, that is axiomatic. Someone said earlier that we were in a privileged position, but we are not. Everyone is in the same position and we all pay tax on everything over and above the minimal level.
	I understand the argument that the incidental expenses provision should be referred to the Members Estimate Committee. That view has some merit. I see from the many issues that have already arisen in the debate that an input from Members, based on their practical experience, would be helpful. However, Members are entitled to know what the remit, limitations and constraints of that investigation would be. Will the SSRB's basic objectives be accepted, and what is the time scale for producing the conclusions and implementing them? What will happen in the interim?
	I turn now to parliamentary pensions, and I suppose I should now declare an interest. However, given the convoluted discussion that took place earlier, I am not sure how I am affected. Nevertheless, we are all affected to some extent. I accept that it was unfortunate that the long process to persuade or encourage us to engage in adequate saving arrangements in the late 1990s or the early part of this century meant that, when we eventually got round to improving the terms, the world had moved on. It looked as though we were totally out of synch with comparators in other occupations. That creates a difficulty, and I understand the problem and the suggestion from the Leader of the House and the SSRB that there should be some phased recovery. I have the greatest confidence in our trustees, but some issues have not been properly addressed.
	I hope that the Leader of the House will give us a specific assurance that the situation will not set a precedent for going back on explicit promises made to Members only a short time ago about the way in which the rate of contributions will be handled. The fact that the provision is retrospective and will apply from April 2004 also sets an unfortunate precedent. We usually say that we do not want the House to implement retrospective legislation, and I hope that that situation will usually apply to us. Members will face an effective increase of 2 per cent. because the 1 per cent. provision will apply to only six months in the current year.
	I entirely agree with the reasonable and equitable improvements suggested for beneficiaries. However, pensionable age remains a fraught question, and there is no way that we are dispelling worries about that today[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) has obviously indicated that that is the case. We should bring ourselves into line with people in comparable occupations, but, as has been pointed out, hon. Members, especially those in marginal seats, are not encouraged by the leaders of their partiesnot even the leader of my partylet alone the Whips, to say on their 65th birthday, I'm off, friends.
	I hope that the Leader of the House will carefully examine the way in which the SSRB was asked to conduct this review. I take up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon. The SSRB made a set of proposals that were unrelated to the matters that hon. Members thought were on the table, so there was no consultation on major changes that will affect the way in which we try to serve the country and our constituencies. That has weakened the packageperhaps disastrously. Although I would hope that an SSRB package would normally receive overwhelming cross-party support when debated on the Floor, on this occasion the SSRB has either been let down, or has let us downI am not prepared to judge which. Yes, it has an important role to play, but it is not right that it should advance principles about the way in which Parliament operates that are outwith its terms of reference.

Ian Stewart: I am pleased to be called to speak in the debate. There are 659 Members of Parliament, so the Members' service has 659 different shapes. I speak for myself on the basis of my experience. I can tell you at the outset, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if I retain the confidence of the people of Eccles at the next general election and they return me to this place, I shall make an even bigger effort to assist the authorities with their future deliberations on the question of what I call the MPs' parliamentary service by submitting oral evidence to the Senior Salaries Review Body. That service ranges from a Member's role in the core aims of the service to the way in which the service is delivered across locations. To be frank, I do not think that we do enough to raise public awareness about such matters and although I accept that each individual Member must decide the most appropriate shape of service for his or her constituency, there are overarching issues which the House can, and must, address. Nevertheless, I support the system through which the independent SSRB reviews such issues as Members' pay and allowances.
	I thank the SSRB for its comprehensive report. I understand that some members of the body may be in the Public Gallery today, so I hope that the debate will further their understanding of the many varied factors behind the 659 different approaches employed by Members to deliver such a complex and important service. I also thank the body for agreeing to hear my oral evidence in support of the written evidence that I submitted. Although I am pleased that my request to the SSRB bore fruit, I am sad to report that on two occasions, the former Speaker's Panel on Members' Allowances refused my request for a meeting and did not offer any solution to the problem with the staffing budget that I had highlighted. I thus have great hopes that the new Members Estimate Committee will be much more transparent, accessible and responsive to Members.
	I had a lively and stimulating session with the SSRB, which I thoroughly enjoyed. As I have given written and oral evidence to the 2001 and the 2004 review boards, I have come to realise that while my motive for attending the sessions was to ensure that the body understood my views, I also gained clarification on, and a better understanding of, the issues that arose from our joint exchanges.
	Like many hon. Members, I have an office in Westminster and one in my constituency. I employ 2.5 members of staff, who are individual members of the Transport and General Workers Union parliamentary branch, which is based in the House. I would like to increase that complement to three full-time equivalent workers. As you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have deep roots in the trade union movement as a lifelong TGWU member. I take the view that if there is an identified formal job to be done, someone should be employed to do it and paid at the right rate for it. I should point out that although I am a proud trade union member, I have consistently put forward my views on the basis that I want to be a Member of Parliament who is also a good employer. That is imperative if I am to deliver the service that my constituents deserve.
	To deliver that service, we need not only good equipment, but caseworkers, researchers and, of course, the much maligned administrators. I welcome the increase in the staffing budget because I hope that it will go a significant way towards enabling us to employ the three full-time equivalent members of staff that the SSRB recommends at decent and appropriate salary levels. I welcome the SSRB recommendation that the extra pay intended for staff based in London be recognised in their pay ranges.
	I am sorry to say, however, that the problem with the staffing budget remains. In my submission to the SSRB, I argued for the abolition of the anomalous cap on staff salaries. I said that the numbers of staff allowed, after account was taken of the criteria outlined by the House and proper staff evaluation, would create a natural cap in the existing system, and I remain concerned. When the previous report was produced, the House's Department of Finance and Administration circulated to us, as employers, the recommended salary scales for each grade of staff. However, the increase in the staffing allowance that we have received each year since then has met only the cost of inflation. Although I have been able to give my staff a pay increase to cover rising costs, I have not been able to allow them to progress up the salary scales. If I were to do that as the SSRB and the Department of Finance and Administration intended, I would have to pay staff at less than the appropriate grade for their qualifications, experience and duties, or employ fewer than three members of staff, which I believe provides a lesser service than my constituents deserve.
	I doubt that many members of staff are on the top level for posts such as senior parliamentary assistant. The SSRB and the Department of Finance and Administration recommend a rate of 34,300 for such staff based in London. I am certainly unable to pay that amount. I am sure that many of us have experienced and long serving staff, but we just cannot pay them the highest salaries, even when that is appropriate. We do not have the money to do so because the staffing budget has an artificial cap, which means that if an experienced member of staff meets the criteria laid down in the 2001 SSRB report for the highest grade and if the MP, after proper evaluation, agrees to pay that level of salary, he or she must depress the salary levels of the other two full-time equivalent members of staff or alternatively be forced, like me, to consider employing fewer than three members of staff. The system is perverse.
	I hope that the SSRB recommendation to increase our staff budget from 66,450 to 72,000 for Members outside London will help us to make progress on the issue. However, the matter requires further investigation and is still to be resolved. I note that the SSRB recommends a review of job descriptions and pay ranges for caseworkers, which I would support. That should give us a firm basis on which to resolve the matter, and I am happy to assist the Members Estimate Committee or any other appropriate body in order to do so.
	It is well known that I take an interest in the provision of information technology equipment. The implementation of the SSRB recommendations in 2001 was undoubtedly a significant step forward. I am glad that the board is unequivocal in advocating that every MP should be provided with three work stations in addition to their own, which is an acknowledgement that we need three full-time equivalent members of staff. However, we must address the increasing use of pervasive technology such as modern mobile phones that can be used as mini-computers. As I have told Mr. Speaker, I am happy to carry out a pilot, and I shall contact him separately on the matter. We need a designated MP IT service unit. Every Government and parliamentary department has its own designated IT unit, and it is not acceptable in this day and age that MPs should have no such support or back-up.
	Turning to SSRB recommendations with which I do not agree, I appreciate that pressure on the parliamentary estate has led to proposals for hot-desking. As I have already said, there is great pressure on MPs to take on interns and other temporary staff, but hot-desking is not the answer. Caseworkers generally need access to hard-copy information, particularly in immigration and asylum cases. They cannot work just anywhere, if for no other reason than to preserve confidentiality. I am on record as predicting that electronically received constituency casework will increase over the next five to 10 years, which means that MPs will have to employ more staff. However, although e-mail casework is increasing, my constituents are far from emailing me as a matter of routine. Constituents with problems still tend to use a small size of ruled writing paperso much so, in fact, that I think the pad is passed round the constituency. Our constituents expect confidentiality, which must not be compromised. Hot-desking will not solve the ever-increasing need for space for MPs' services on the parliamentary estate. However, the House must be frank with the public and explain why we need certain resources to deliver a modern and effective service. The more accessible and effective Members' services are, the greater the need for adequate and appropriate resources. We should not shirk that responsibility, and we should be frank with the public.
	As the initiator of the ADAPT learning project, which has subsequently developed into the parliamentary learning project, I was pleased that the SSRB highlighted the key role of training for staff and, indeed, Members. However, constituency staff are the Cinderellas of the field, so more must be done to allow them access to high-quality training and support. We need to develop the parliamentary learning project to deliver core training for Members' services, including the use of the internet-based distance learning system originally envisaged in 1998.
	I shall conclude with a provision that affects our constituencies. I am concerned about the recommendation on the one hand to increase the incidental expenses provision to 27,500 while on the other hand clawing back or slicing off some of that money from Members who employ one or more staff members in London. That detrimental change could lead to a massive deficit that might destabilise our services. My local authority has argued with the Government that a reduction in the overall population does not necessarily lead to a reduction in the cost of providing services. I believe that the same principle applies to Members' services. Once a Member has an office in their constituency, fixed costs for rental and heating apply whether they have one or more members of staff. I also oppose any reduction in the facilities available in the House, as it is self-evident that that is not in my constituents' interests. I hope that my recommendation will be remitted to the Members Estimate Committee so that it can find a more acceptable way forward. I shall therefore support the proposals on the provision of incidental expenses tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
	I have not yet addressed the recommendations on Members' pay. The SSRB reports that it received no submissions from MPs proposing that their pay be increased. I gave oral evidence to the SSRB and, on both occasions, I declined when I was asked if I wished to comment on Members' pay. To date, I have been happy with an inflation-proof increase on an annual basis. The next SSRB report is scheduled for 2006, but I thank the board for its present report. While I do not agree with all of it, it is lucid and easy to read. I hope that some of its key recommendations will command the support of the House, and I welcome the fact that it will be referred back to deal with the concerns that I have highlighted, namely hot-desking and the proposals on the incidental expenses provision.

Richard Page: I wish to speak in support of amendment (g). The Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) can relax, as I do not propose to speak to amendment (h) or press it to a vote.
	I am exceedingly grateful to right hon. and hon. Members who have supported amendment (g). Like the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), I belong to the select band of Members who, after 28 years of service, will not stand at the next election, so I can press amendments without fear or favour. I tabled the amendment because I am concerned that the House is getting into a bit of a muddle. When I leave, I want to be sure that everything is sweetness and light and runs properly. At the outset, however, I should make it clear that I am not critical of the way in which the SSRB has determined its figures. Whatever mysterious method it uses, I have no quarrel with the total sum. However, the money should be divided equally between all Members of Parliament and, as elected representatives, we should take responsibility for the way in which the allowance is spent, subject to approval from Finance and Administration that it has been correctly spent.
	I said that the House is getting into a bit of a muddleafter all the years that I have spent here, I recognise a slippery slope when I see one. I am not sure whether the figure of 7,000 is a bonus or penalty, but it is the start of a slippery slope. I am not sure where it will lead, but I fear that it will further diminish the standing of Parliament. I am afeard that that 7,000 will force MPs to do not what they want to do, but what the allowances direct them to do.

Ann Widdecombe: Will my hon. Friend comment on the farcical situation that would ensue? Members of Parliament would be so penalised by the rule of 7,500 per work station that they would end upas I wouldwith insufficient money to pay the rent for their constituency office, which is the exact opposite of the intended effect of the proposals.

Richard Page: My right hon. Friend, who had the wit and wisdom to support my amendment, makes a valid point. We must return to a clearer and simpler system, so that we avoid those difficulties. One or two hon. Members have said that the SSRB should stop trying to engineer accommodation in the House and stick to its overall task.

Patrick McLoughlin: Does my hon. Friend accept that another problem with the recommendations in the SSRB report is that, now that allowances are to be published each year, the very fact that certain Members will be able to claim 27,000 in incidental expenses provision while other Members will perhaps be able to claim only 5,000 may give the public a very distorted view of what is being claimed or the benefit that a Member of Parliament is getting?

Richard Page: One of the advantages of speaking so late in a debate about one's own amendment is that it will have been trawled and trampled over, and generally explained to everybody to the nth degree. In fact, I wonder why I am speaking to amendment (g) at all. Apart from the Leader of the House, who got himself into such a muddle trying to answer questions about these matters, everybody agrees that the amendment is a good thing. Perhaps I should sit down and leave it at that, but I have never known a Member of Parliament not use some words when the opportunity to do so is available. As my time is running out in this place and this is such an opportunity, I should like to say just a little bit more, but I promise that it will be only a little bit.
	The main purpose of amendment (g) is to restore to Members the right to restructure their offices however they think best in order for them to carry out their parliamentary and constituency duties. That is the raison d'tre of the amendment. As has been mentioned, prior to 2001 all Members were treated equally with regard to allowances. Many aspects of those reforms were welcome, but in my view they started this very unhelpful trend towards ending the uniformity of allowances for Members and introducing an element of persuading Members, by the allowances that were available, to restructure their offices in a particular way that was not their way, but the allowances' way. The 7,000 would accelerate that trend.
	I welcome the greater transparency in laying down and publicising Members' allowances, but I think that, in order to be believablethis relates to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) has just madethose allowances must be made irrespective of where Members' constituencies are and of whether and where they have decided to have a principal office. First, we had extra allowances for Members with London constituencies, and now Members who choose to base their staff in Westminster rather than in their constituency will, if the proposals are agreed to, have their allowances reduced. It is not a fair comparison. We have all had media interest in our various allowances, and we have had it to a greater degree over the past few weeks.
	More importantly, I strongly believe that Members should not be subject to financial pressures in deciding how best to structure their offices in order to do the best job for their constituents. They have to stand up in front of their constituents at the election, and I believe that they should not be subject to outside pressures telling them how they should have been running their affairs. As the House will know, the unique nature of each constituency means that there cannot be such a one-size-fits-all arrangement for Members' offices. The Leader of the House accepted that view when he delicately acceptedI was about to say dodged, but perhaps I shall withdraw thatthe points made by hon. Members on this matter.
	I shall not expand on that point, except to give just one example. On the day when the list of MPs' expenses was published, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso)I did not tell him that I would mention him in the debate, but I do not believe that he will be upset, because what I have to say is in no way criticalsaid that he had chosen not to have a fixed office in his constituency on account of the huge geographical area that it covers and the distances between its various towns and villages. Instead, he chooses to travel to his constituents and receive logistical support from his Westminster-based staff. If that is the arrangement that he wants, it is the arrangement that he should have. There should be flexibility in the allowance system to enable him to do exactly that. I believe that the review body's proposals would unfairly penalise those with such arrangements.

Ian Stewart: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that in the 2001 report and the subsequent debate, a special circumstances allowance was referred to? To date, we know of no hon. Member who has appliedI am aware that some have done sowho has achieved any success from that allowance.

Richard Page: I am not responsible for who gets or does not get any of these so-called special allowances. I believe that there should be an overall, even amount for Members of Parliament, and that it is for them alone to decide how that money is spent.
	In short, Members have widely different responsibilities and constituents' needs, and the allowance should give maximum flexibility in office arrangements. Amendment (g) would be easy to administer and control, and would ensure that responsibility is where it should bewith the Member.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Although the length of time for debate is not fixed from the Chair, I am anxious that there are a number of what might be called stakeholders who will expect to contribute to the debate. May I please appeal now for extreme brevity, as we need a winding-up speech at the end of the debate, and there is not a lot of time left?

Anne Campbell: I should like to speak in favour of the main motion, which largely reflects the recommendations of the SSRB.
	I want also to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) in initiating the Adapt project, which has led to some extremely valuable training provision for our staff. My staff have found that training extremely useful and valuable, and it has also been valuable to me as a Member. The work that he did was pioneering stuff, and I congratulate him on it. I assure him that the Members' advisory panel carefully considered his submission to us; although we did not call him to give evidence, that submission was extensively considered, and I am sorry that we were unable to follow through the recommendation.
	The amendments raise some issues that I would like to address. I oppose amendment (g), which was tabled by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), because I think that it breaks an important principle that was introduced after the 2001 election. The principle was introduced because it was feared that many members of staff were not being employed under proper terms and conditions. The work done by the Speaker's advisory panel and now the Members' advisory panel, which I chair, led to the introduction of a standard contract for all employed staff, standard pay scales and a staff salaries budget, which was ring-fenced, so that it is in no one's interest to pay their staff poverty wages.

Tony McWalter: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I agree with her in principle, but as she heard my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles say, there is now no scope for giving proper increments to experienced staff year on year. As I read it, amendment (g) would allow us to do that very thing.

Anne Campbell: We are always going to get to a point at which the maximum is reached. It is inherent in the capping procedure that once staff salaries total the maximum, it is not possible to pay increments in addition to inflationary allowances. That is one of the difficulties that we have to accept. Staff turnover is rapid, so one can start new staff at the bottom of the scale and pay increments to other staff, but we all face that difficulty.

Paul Tyler: Will the hon. Lady accept that if the motion is passed hon. Members will be encouraged to employ interns, partially qualified staff, untrained staff or part-time staff, which she apparently wants to do, rather than maintaining professional staff in the House?

Anne Campbell: We must all make a judgment on that, but we all understand the importance of employing permanent staff. I would find it difficult to staff my office entirely, or even mainly, with interns and voluntary staff.

Frank Dobson: A substantial number of hon. Members supplement the existing money for salaries by taking money from the incidental expenses provision. They do so because they like to give increments to staff, some of whom have worked for them for more than 20 years, and because they like to reward their staff, if their staff undergo training. If they continue that practice and exercise their judgment that their staff should be in their parliamentary estate office, they will not be able to do the other things for which IEP provides, because they will have only 5,000.

Anne Campbell: I understand my right hon. Friend's point and do not pretend that the SSRB's recommendations are entirely satisfactory. I use the example to speak against amendment (g), which erodes the important principle that staff salaries should be ring-fenced. Together with the changes to staff pension arrangements, we have put staff employment on a proper and fair footing, and I do not want to see the erosion of that principle.
	It is, of course, possible to transfer money into salaries from IEP, but not the reverse, which amendment (g) would allow, and we should hold fast to that principle. I realise that amendment (g) was tabled for good reasons and that it is simpler than the proposal advanced by the SSRB. However, it is better to increase IEP and allow hon. Members to transfer some of it to staff salaries, which they may do now, than to transfer money from staff salaries to IEP, so I cannot support the amendment afternoon.
	On the main proposal, I welcome the modest increase in the staff budget. Paragraph 4.9, table 4.3 in the SSRB report makes it clear that most hon. Members spend all of their staff salaries allowance. I personally welcome the extra, which will enable me to reward my staff a little more generously for what they do. I need to employ my full complement of three staff, all of whom work on constituency casework. I do not employ staff to conduct research here because the casework load is so heavy that I need three staff to do itI can also find plenty of work for the various interns and volunteers who pass through my office. My staff serve me wellthey perform an essential service and are much appreciated by my constituents. However, a new rule to increase IEP for those hon. Members with constituency offices and to reduce it for members of staff based at Westminster would present many of us with a conundrum.
	Earlier, I referred to the important question of how workstations would count under amendment (g) towards reducing the allowance. I would certainly base my workstation here in the House, which is where I do most of my work, but I do not use it when I sit in this Chamber, for example, and therefore consider it to be available to a member of staff. That addresses the point raised by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) about two members of staff being the norm. One could have a staff workstation and a Member's workstation, in which case two members of staff could be employed for about the same IEP as they are currently.

Ann Widdecombe: This is Monty Python stuff. The hon. Lady's answer is that we should get round the problem not by decreasing the burden on the parliamentary estate but by fiddling how we define workstationforget it.

Anne Campbell: I object to the use of the word fiddling. Examining the allocation of workstations is not fiddling.
	Amendment (c) concerns mileage allowances, which I have always considered absurdly generous, possibly because I do not own a car and therefore have rarely had the opportunity to claim them. We should encourage hon. Members to use environmentally friendly means of travel, and the private car does not fall into that category. I appreciate that my constituency is small, that I can get around it by bicycle, on foot and by bus, and that many hon. Members cannot do that, but the current mileage allowance is far too high.
	I use a taxi when it is raining, blowing or snowing, which makes a bicycle impractical. Ironically, the current mileage allowance pays about one third of the cost of a taxi. We have recently introduced the possibility of claiming the full amount from IEP, provided that receipts are produced, but because I always spend my IEPin most years, I exceed it by a quite a large amountI cannot use that solution. If IEP were to increase, it would allow me to use some of my allowance to pay for taxis, when they are necessary.
	I appreciate that many hon. Members will be caused difficulty by a rapid reduction in the mileage allowance from 57.7p a mile to 40p a mile, and we must examine how to introduce that reduction gradually rather than very quickly. I do not support amendment (c), because the Inland Revenue rate has not been increased for many years, and I presume that it would take a long time for its rate40p per mileto catch up with the 57.7p that we pay Members now.

John Butterfill: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is clear that it will not be possible for my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) to speak to his amendment. Will he be able to move it formally, when time is up?
	Furthermore, I shall be unable to say anything about the pension fund, which hon. Members wanted to be explained to them. Can the Leader of the House arrange another occasion for me to do that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is now apparent that not all those whom I identified as wanting to speak are likely to be able to contribute. However, that has no negative effect on the ability to put Questions at the end of the debate.

Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not in order for the Leader of the House to move that the debate be deferred or extended, so that these matters can be decided after having been debated?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter that I can determine. The House determined the timing of the debates yesterday on a motion tabled by the Leader of the House, and I do not think that we shall see any change now.

Anne Campbell: I was about to wind up, as I have nothing else to say. I shall listen carefully to what others say.

Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to be called to speak briefly to my amendment (c). I am not frightened of putting my head above the parapet when I believe that it is necessary to gain justice and fairness for Members of Parliament.
	I remind the House that Members of Parliament have entered into leasing or hire purchase agreements on cars, or have found other ways to have the use of a car, and they cannot change such arrangements, which might last for up to five years. I believe that it is unreasonable to reduce dramatically the rate of mileage allowance available to Members from the present rate of 57.7p per mile, which is low compared with what we used to have. The purpose of my amendment is to freeze the allowance at the present rate until the Inland Revenue rate40p per mile at presenthas caught up.
	We have already heard that the Inland Revenue rate is based on no understood criteria and has not been increased for a number of years, despite the fact that motoring costs, particularly fuel costs, have increased dramatically in the past four or five years. The Leader of the House knows that in the last two or three months alone the cost of petrol and diesel has increased by 7p or 8p per litre. It would be an injustice not to reflect that in the mileage allowance that Members are able to claim.

David Heath: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nicholas Winterton: I shall in a moment.
	We have agreed to have no increase in salary this year, other than the inflation increase. At April 2003, the median salary of the typical private sector comparator was 68,000, and that of the typical public sector comparator was 65,000. Our salary is 57,500, so our earnings are well below those of the comparators with which we are supposed to be matched. It is therefore unfair that from 1 April next year Members of Parliament face a dramatically reduced mileage allowance, which bears no resemblance to the true cost of motoring. I understand that Members who travel 20,000 miles a year will lose 3,600 from their income. Is that fair? I do not believe that it is.

David Heath: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nicholas Winterton: I am sorry, but I have been advised to keep going because of the time. I apologise profusely to the hon. Gentleman.
	I wish to draw the House's attention to the threshold. My constituency is about 180 miles from London. My wife and I generally, but not always, travel to London by car rather than by train, because doing so enables us to do our job in our constituencies betterwe are able to attend more meetings and meet more constituents. Every time we do that journey, we save the taxpayer 380. I get only a modest allowance for travelling by car, so I already subsidise every mile that I travel on constituency or parliamentary duties. I hope that the Leader of the House will say that my amendment will be decided on a genuinely free vote. It is wrong that Members of Parliament should so heavily subsidise their parliamentary activities. I feel very deeply about this. I am delighted that my amendment has received support from the Labour partythe Government partythe Liberal Democrat party, the Democratic Unionist party, and Her Majesty's Opposition: the Conservative and Unionist party.
	I ask only for fairness. There has been a huge rise in the cost of motoring. In my constituency, it is 26 miles from north to south and 16 miles from east to west. I attend numerous events. We do not have the public transport that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) appears to have. I cannot get from the north to the south of my constituency by public transport or, for that matter, by bicycle, unless I spend a huge amount of time that reduces the time available to serve my constituents.
	I say this to the Leader of the House: please let us have justice for people who seek to do a good job and to use their car only when it is necessary to do so in support of their parliamentary activities. The Senior Salaries Review Body is abusing its position by interfering in this matter, which has nothing whatever to do with it. Why it did it I do not know. I see the damp hand of the Inland Revenue; that is deeply regrettable.
	Members of Parliament have faced the situation that all their allowances were published in the tabloid press and elsewherelet us give them a fair crack of the whip. I have been in this place for 33 years. I worship this House and believe that it is the best Parliament in the world. Let us not undermine the role of Members of Parliament by undermining their ability to do the job that they are here to do.

Norman Baker: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for being so kind in trying to call Members who have moved amendments.
	I am afraid that I must disagree with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), although I do so with respect for his position. He says that motoring costs have risen substantially, but Department for Transport figures show that they have decreased by 4.8 per cent. since 1997. I do not agree that 57p is the appropriate rate for mileage. The recommendation in the report is right on environmental grounds. Paragraph 4.51 explains why the rate was chosen and says that it includes depreciation, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey). It states:
	We received no evidence to justify why MPs should be entitled to a more advantageous rate,
	and that it
	sets a bad environmental example by encouraging and rewarding car use.
	If Members feel disadvantaged, they have, as the Leader of the House said, the option of switching to a cleaner, greener car. I endorse his view. I hope that he will have had some sway with his colleagues, and that if amendment (c) is carried, he will support my amendment (i).
	The proposal on parking charges was not in the report but was subsequently inserted into the motion. There would have to be strict controls on how that is applied. For example, it costs 40 a day to park in short-term parking at Heathrow airport. No doubt Members could make the case that that was necessary in the performance of their duties, but it would not be good value for the taxpayer.
	I will not take up any more of the House's time, although there is a lot more that I could say. If amendment (c) is accepted, I will move amendment (i).

John Butterfill: The trustees and I support the amendments that relate to the pension fund. We agreed to the increase in Members' contribution when we changed the accrual rate. The increase of 1 per cent. goes one further stepalmost all the wayto paying for that. Perhaps when the next actuarial valuation is made, a further increase will not be necessary. However, we shall not know that until the Government Actuary's Department conducts its valuation.
	The package of measures that relate to pensions for widows, widowers and surviving unmarried partners and the payment for life of pensions to widows, widowers and unmarried partners is generally available throughout the country in pension schemes in the public and private sectors, and I fully support it. The need to make that cost neutral influences the idea that we should forgo our early retirement rights. I suggested that in a debate when we discussed forces pensions. It is right and proper that we should fall into line with what is happening elsewhere in society and in the public sector.
	The change needs to be phased in, however. The Government's proposal would lead to a process of phasing in which I shall try to explain briefly. For new Members of Parliament, there will be no right to retire before the age of 65 without a diminution calculated by the Government Actuary. All existing Members will have some benefit. Those who retire in 2009 or the day after the general election after next will not be affected. After that, there will be a sliding scale whereby the actuarial factor is diminished to take account of Members' length of service so that they will not pay the full actuarial reduction but some actuarial reduction, tempered by a table that my fellow trustees and I, together with the Leader of the House and the Government Actuary, will construct. We will send full details of that to all hon. Members as soon as they are available. However, no existing Members will have a full actuarial reduction if they retire before they are 65.

Alex Salmond: I understand that time is pressing. With the exception of the contribution of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), whose expertise I respect, much of the rest of the SSRB's report is a dog's breakfast. I believe that that is due to a lack of familiarity with some of the detail of the allowances. The Leader of the House would have been better advised to refer the SSRB report in its entirety, rather than only one aspect of it, to the Members Estimate Committee. That would have been better for the treatment of the recommendations and, I suspect, for the outcome.
	I want to speak for one minute on a small matter. It is frustrating that I have failed to get it progressed. Perhaps it is a symptom of our treatment of such issues that something so minor has not been progressed. The SSRB defines the additional costs allowance as it is described on the House of Commons website. It states that the purpose of the allowance is
	To reimburse Members for costs incurred when staying overnight away from their main home whilst performing Parliamentary duties.
	However, the additional costs allowance was brought into being by a motion in December 1971 and defined specifically as being for parliamentary duties in London or the constituency. At that time, there was no National Assembly for Wales or Scottish Parliament. For a small number in the north of Scotland and perhaps in rural Wales, it is often physically impossible to carry out parliamentary duties with Scottish or Welsh Ministers or, indeed, Westminster Ministers when they are visiting the relevant Parliament, without staying overnight, away from home.
	The Fees Office solution, which is bound by a previous resolution, is to tell Members to claim out of their IEP. However, it is clear from the SSRB report that IEP is not designed to pay for Members' overnight expenses. The additional costs allowance should do that. I am not asking for an increase in the allowance, merely for the ability to claim from the correct allowance for meeting a Minister in the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales instead of being told to claim from an allowance that was not designed for that purpose.
	This affects a very small number of Members, but I would have thought that it was a very simple matter to resolve. I had a meeting with the Leader of the House last year to attempt to progress it, and I find it highly frustrating that something so simple, so clear and so obvious cannot be done to bring the House up to date in regard to its expenses provision. I strongly suspect that, if the SSRB were more familiar with the nature of our allowances, it would have had no objection whatever to my proposal. I therefore hope that the Members Estimate Committee will, if the House decides to charge it with considering these matters, introduce this minor amendment. It would make life for a few Members much easier by bringing the allowances into line with what they were originally intended to do, and by bringing them into terms with reality.

Phil Woolas: I thank all the right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, not only this afternoon but in the extensive work that they have done before. Members such as the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) have put in a huge amount of time and effort on behalf of us alloften without thanks, as we have seen this afternoon. I thank them and all the other Members who have taken part.
	I emphasise that, as this is a House matter, this will be a free vote for Back Benchers on this side and, I know, on the Opposition side[Interruption.] If hon. Members will be patient, I shall explain. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has a duty to put forward the recommendations of the independent report from the SSRB, which the House commissioned. He cannot cherry-pick, should not cherry-pick, and has not cherry-picked the recommendations. This is an independent report and it is presented to us to ensure that the integrity of the House is maintained.
	I want to go through some of the arguments in favour of the motion and against the amendments[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) would stop chuntering, he might find that he has some sympathy with what I have to say[Interruption.] He is chuntering and chattering, as is normally the case. As I was saying, it is incumbent on us to put these recommendations before the House. As the Leader of the House acknowledged, there is some difficulty in regard to the recommendations on incidental expenses provisions. The SSRB report recognises that some of the matters that it has been asked to deal withit is the House that asked it to do sogo beyond the remit of considering Members' pay and allowances. Of course, there is an interaction between office accommodation, incidental expenses and staff allowances. It is also a facta harsh onethat the parliamentary estate is very crowded, and that has to be taken into account.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) made the point that there was discrimination under the current system. His worry was that the proposed new system would introduce another kind of discrimination, and that two wrongs would not make a right. That is exactly why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has asked for a deviation from the SSRB recommendation in this one regard, by asking the Members Estimate Committee to consider this matter. He has done so because the matter is not exclusively about salaries and allowances.
	Amendment (g), which has the advantage of simplicity, has been supported by hon. Members on both sides. It contains a carrot, in that it would redress the discrimination against those Members who lose out by not having staff on the parliamentary estate, but it does not provide the stick, in terms of an incentive to bear down on the staff. I am not arguing that it should do that, or that it should not. I am pointing out that the choice has been put before the House. Hon. Members should bear in mind the factas the House authorities, the Leader of the House and I have tothat none of these things come without a cost. We do not know the exact cost of amendment (g), but we estimate it at between 2 million and 3 million. However, we must acknowledge in our deliberations the fact that we are in a unique situation in deciding our own pay and allowances. I am grateful for the indication that amendment (h) will not be pushed to the vote.
	On mileage, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) has pointed out the shock impact of the proposal, in that Members who use cars will lose money. On the other hand, the House has to balance whether it wishes to accept the independence of the SSRB report and the fact that our mileage allowances are better than those for members of the public. If there are problems with the Inland Revenue rates, I suggest that hon. Members take that up with the Government and the Inland Revenue, not make special pleading for their own case.
	On pensions, which are perhaps the most important point, it is clear that the increase in the fund is provided by Members' contributions. This is not feather-bedding by the Exchequer; Members' salaries pay those contributions, which sets a good example. However, I believe that we have a moral, as well as a political and financial, obligation to accept these recommendations that the trustees all supported.
	It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings, pursuant to Order [2 November].
	Amendment proposed: (g), in line 9, leave out from first 'to' to 'and' in line 11 and insert
	80,460 for all Members with up to 10 per cent. of the Staffing Allowance being available to fund a Member's office in his or her constituency..[Mr. Page.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 109.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Amendment proposed: (c) in line 25, leave out from 'With' to 'and' in line 28 and insert
	'immediate effect, the annual uprating of the higher and lower car mileage rates shall cease; with effect from the date on which the Inland Revenue higher car mileage rate first exceeds the higher car mileage rate payable to Members, the higher rate car mileage allowance payable up to a total of 20,000 miles to Members should be payable at the same rate as the higher car mileage rate approved by the Inland Revenue, and with effect from the date on which the Inland Revenue lower car mileage rate first exceeds the lower car mileage rate payable to Members, the lower car mileage allowance payable to Members should be payable at the same rate as the lower car mileage rate approved by the Inland Revenue.'.[Sir Nicholas Winterton.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 193.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House notes the recommendations made in Chapter 4 of the report of the Review Body on Senior Salaries on parliamentary pay and allowances (Cm 6354-I) a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st October; and is of the opinion that the provisions set out in paragraphs (2) to (5) below should be implemented, subject to any decisions of the Members Estimate Committee with regard to their application.
	Staffing Allowance
	(2) With effect from 1st April 2005, the Staffing Allowance should be increased to 80,460 for all Members with up to 10 per cent. of the Staffing Allowance being available to fund a Member's office in his or her constituency; and these sums should be adjusted on 1st April each year (beginning on 1st April 2005) in line with the Average Earnings Index for public and private sectors combined.
	IT Provision
	(3) With effect from the beginning of the next Parliament, the level of provision of IT equipment and support should be increased in line with recommendations 11 and 12 of the Review Body's report (Cm 6354-I).
	London Supplement
	(4) With effect from 1st April 2005, the London Supplement should be increased to 2,500, and this sum should be adjusted on 1st April each year (beginning on 1st April 2005) in line with the Average Earnings Index for public and private sectors combined; and it should not be payable to any Member who receives the Additional Costs Allowance.
	Car Mileage Allowance and Parking
	(5) With effect from 1st April 2005, the Car Mileage Allowance should be payable at the same rate as the car mileage rates approved by the Inland Revenue, with the higher rate payable up to a total of 10,000 miles and the lower rate thereafter or as determined in future by the Inland Revenue; and the cost of parking a car, motorcycle or bicycle, if wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the performance of parliamentary duties, should be reimbursed.
	Incidental Expenses Provision
	(6) That recommendation 8 of the Review Body's report (Cm 6354-I) be referred to the House of Commons Members Estimate Committee for further consideration.

PARLIAMENTARY PENSIONS (CONTRIBUTION RATE)

Resolved,
	That this House notes recommendation 4 contained in the report of the Review Body on Senior Salaries on parliamentary pay and allowances (Cm 6354-I), a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st October, that the contribution rate to the parliamentary pension scheme for those scheme members who have opted for the 1/40th accrual rate should be increased by 1 per cent. to 10 per cent. with effect from 1st April 2004, and is of the opinion that it should be implemented.[Mr. Woolas.]

PARLIAMENTARY PENSIONS (SURVIVOR BENEFITS AND EARLY RETIREMENT)

Resolved,
	That this House notes recommendation 3 contained in the report of the Review Body on Senior Salaries on parliamentary pay and allowances (Cm 6354-I), a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st October, and is of the opinion that, subject to consultation with the Trustees of the PCPF and the Government Actuary as to the detailed implementation, the proposals set out in paragraphs (1) to (3) below should be adopted as a package which is, overall, at least cost neutral to the Exchequer:
	(1) Pensions calculated on the same basis as pensions for widows and widowers should be introduced for surviving unmarried partners of members in service on or after 3rd November 2004.
	(2) Pensions for the widows, widowers and unmarried partners of members in service on or after 3rd November 2004 should be payable for life.
	(3) The early retirement provisions which permit a member who has accrued at least 15 years service to retire before the age of 65 on favourable terms should be removed for those who become members of the scheme after 3rd November 2004 and phased out for existing members from 1st April 2009, or the day after the general election after next, whichever is the later.[Mr. Woolas.]

Sessional Orders and Resolutions

Peter Hain: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note of the Third Report of the Procedure Committee, Session 200203, on Sessional Orders and Resolutions, HC 855, and the Government's Response thereto (published as the Committee's Third Special Report of the current Session, HC 613); approves the proposals set out in paragraphs 9, 10 and 25 of the Report for changes in the practice of the House at the beginning of each Session; and, as recommended in paragraph 9(b), makes the following provision:
	That all Members of this House who are returned for two or more places in any part of the United Kingdom should choose for which of the places they will serve, within one week after it appears that there is no question about their election for that place.
	I had looked forward to seeing headlines in tomorrow's newspapers stating that we had agreed to cut our mileage rates, but somehow I think that that might not happen.
	The motion takes note of the Procedure Committee's report on Sessional Orders and resolutions, published last November, and the Government's reply to it. It approves the proposals set out in paragraphs 9, 10 and 25 of the report for changes in the practice of the House at the beginning of the Session. I am grateful to the Procedure Committee, and to its Chairman, for the advice we have been given.
	As the Committee's report explains, for nearly 200 yearsand longer in some casesthe House has agreed to three orders and three resolutions at the beginning of each Session. They relate to elections, witnesses, the Metropolitan police, and votes and proceedings. The text appears on page 3 of the Committee's report.
	Since 1852, these matters have been taken just before the debate on the reply to the Queen's Speech. They are proposed from the Chair without notice, and have occasionally given rise to debate.
	At the suggestion of Mr. Speaker, the Procedure Committee conducted a thorough inquiry to consider whether the Sessional Orders and resolutions should be abolished and updated, and came to the very clear conclusion that our traditional practice should change.
	First, the Committee considered the First Reading of the Outlawries Billa
	Bill for the more effectual preventing of clandestine outlawries
	that traditionally is taken before the debate on the Queen's Speech as a symbolic assertion of the House's freedom to consider matters of its own choosing. The Committee notes that the practice takes only a few seconds and recommends that it should continue. The Government agree.
	Secondly, the Committee considered the Sessional Orders and resolutions on elections, witnesses and the Votes and Proceedings. It found that the resolution about bribery and the provision for Members to withdraw during any debate on any dispute on their return are obsolete and misleading, as responsibility for election offences and disputes now belongs to the courts, not to the House; that the provision about double returnstwo Members being returned for the same seatrelates to an event that cannot now take place; that the order for the printing of the Votes and Proceedingsthe formal daily minutes of the Houseis unnecessary and that the provision that the Speaker should peruse them before they are printed is not normally carried out; and that the resolutions against tampering with witnesses and giving false evidence have some value as statements of intent, but add nothing to the House's powers to deal with contempts or, in the case of tampering with witnesses or the giving of false evidence on oath, the statutory powers. The Committee, therefore, recommends that the passing of the Sessional Orders and resolutions relating to elections, witnesses and the Votes and Proceedings be discontinued. The Government agree. The motion seeks the House's agreement to that change.

Eric Forth: I hope that at some stage the Leader of the House will tell us why he thinks that those splendid, if slightly archaic, traditions are in any way harmful. This is beginning to look like yet another of the ghastly modernisations that seem to be becoming commonplace, so rather than simply reading out the traditions as if to say that they are self-evidently a bad thing, will he tell us why he thinks it necessary to do away with them?

Peter Hain: The right hon. Gentleman has no doubt looked carefully at the Procedure Committee's report, so he will know that the Committee recommended the changesand I agree.
	The Committee found that the provision, in the elections order, about Members returned for more than one place is unlikely ever to be needed. It last happened in 1910, but the Committee recommended that the possibility be dealt with once and for all by the House deciding, when agreeing to its report, that all Members who are returned for two or more places in any part of the United Kingdom should choose for which of the places they will serve, within one week after it appears that there is no question about their election for that place. The motion contains that provision.

Alex Salmond: rose

Peter Hain: I can assure the House that the provision applies to Members returned to this House for two or more places and would not prevent a Member of this House from belonging to another elected body in the United Kingdom.

Alex Salmond: The Leader of the House has answered the point I wanted to make. I merely wanted to check that there was no insidious, nefarious scheme to prevent any Member from exercising that right if the electorate so wished. The Leader of the House has reassured me and I rest satisfied.

Peter Hain: The urgency with which the hon. Gentleman leapt to his feet made me wonder what his future intentions are and where he sees himself sitting in future.

Nicholas Winterton: May Iuniquelycome to the aid of the Leader of the House to respond, through him, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)? Mr. Speaker encouraged the Procedure Committee to consider whether the Sessional Orders and resolutions should be retained or abolished. In our informal discussions we came to the view set out in our report that they should be abolished as they are no longer relevant to the modern age in which we live.

Eric Forth: Ah, the modern age.

Peter Hain: I shall not rise to the bait held out by the right hon. Gentleman. The Chairman of the Procedure Committee has explained the situation adequately.

Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House explain the logic of keeping the much-loved Outlawries Bill while abolishing other things? What is the logic behind that?

Peter Hain: It was a radical-traditionalist coalition, following the Procedure Committee's expert advice.
	The Committee felt that although those Sessional Orders and resolutions should go, we should still begin the Session with a reminder of matters that the House considers to be of importance. The Committee recommended that there should be a statement by the Speaker of the duties and responsibilities of Memberspossibly, the Committee suggested, the seven principles of public life as set out in the code of conducttogether with historic claims to privilege, including those of freedom of speech and freedom from legal challenge embodied in the Bill of Rights 1689. The motion endorses that proposal.

John Redwood: Given that the Government have had more than a year to consider these matters, does the Leader of the House have a preferred form of words to present to the House? It might be difficult to make a judgment without knowing what is imagined.

Peter Hain: As will be evident from the terms in which the debate is being put to the House, we are asking the Committee to look into the matter for us.

Andrew MacKinlay: That question needs to be answered, and I hope to return to it later if I catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. I listened carefully to the remarks of the Leader of the House about the use of these words at the beginning of a Session, in which he referred to Members. However, the Sessional Orders relate not to Members but to witnesses and people from outside Parliament who should come here to say the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth instead of hiding behind the Osmotherly rules and being economical with the truth. That is the real problem, and he has not addressed it.

Peter Hain: With all due respect to my hon. Friend, who is a diligent and fine parliamentarian, I think that he has raised a separate issue.

Simon Hughes: I am sure that the Leader of the House understands that this is an important issue, because we could be signing up to a document that is a statement of the way in which we should conduct ourselves. Will he assure us that it will be proceeded with on the basis of a proposal to the House and a full opportunity to debate and consult on it? In effect, it will be our constitution and it should not come to us other than after careful consideration so that the Bill of Rights, the freedoms of the House and all the other things are guaranteed.

Peter Hain: Obviously, Mr. Speaker and the Procedure Committee will need to be consulted on the detailed wording before we move further.

Patrick Cormack: Does the Leader of the House accept that taking the Oath is enough for most of us? We do not want anything else.

Peter Hain: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, which was well made.
	The larger, and more controversial, part of the Procedure Committee's report relates to the Sessional Order on the Metropolitan police and the linked issues of access to Parliament and demonstrations in Parliament square. The Committee finds that the Sessional Order is misleading, since it does not confer any additional legal powers on the police. The Committee recommends that the Government should introduce appropriate legislation to prohibit long-term demonstrations and to ensure that the laws about access are adequate and enforceable.
	The Government are well aware of how strongly Members of the House, including Mr. Speaker, feel about this matter. We therefore agree that there needs to be specific legislation that recognises the unique position of Parliament and its surroundings. We will introduce such legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House explain exactly what his proposal means today? Is it a welcome for the suggestion of legislation at an indeterminate point in the future, or does it fundamentally encourage the police to behave and act differently from the way in which they have acted hitherto?

Peter Hain: I think that my hon. Friend will find the answer to his question in what I am about to say. What is envisaged is a sensible proposal that particularly protects access and the orderly operations of the House.

Several hon. Members: rose

Peter Hain: I will give way to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), but then I had better make progress so that I can explain what we intend and take questions on it.

George Young: The Leader of the House said that legislation would be introduced as soon as he could find parliamentary time. Will he assure us that it will be introduced within, say, the next six months?

Peter Hain: The right hon. Gentleman knows from the previous positions that he occupied that I cannot anticipate what will be in the Queen's Speech. He knows that there are protocols and restrictions on me, but I have been pretty clear that we will introduce such legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows. We will do that, and it will be sooner rather than later.
	There is legislation to deal with disruptive demonstrations in Parliament square. Under section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, the police can put conditions on assemblies that they believe may cause serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious damage to the life of the community. We amended the definition of assembly in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 to cover two or more persons.
	The Government recognise that existing legislation has not provided the police with all the powers they need to control all protests and demonstrations around Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has carefully considered what more can be done and we propose a new power for the police to give direction to and impose conditions on any protest, demonstration or assembly within the vicinity of Parliament. It will be an offence to fail to comply with a direction. The precise area will be defined in secondary legislation.
	There is a difficult balance to be struck. It is a long-standing tradition in this country that people are free to gather together and to demonstrate provided that that they do so within the law. I have exercised those rights to protest, and would defend to the last the rights of others to do so, including in Parliament square. Equally, however, access to Parliament must be maintained and those who work in Parliament should be able to do so free from harassment. We are working on the detail of the new power and will of course ensure that it is compatible with the European convention on human rights.

Oliver Heald: rose

John McDonnell: rose

Peter Hain: I give way to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald).

Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House confirm that it will be an arrestable offence?

Peter Hain: That will depend on the exact nature of the legislation that we introduce, but we intend to ensure that it will protect the House in the way that I described.
	May I say, perhaps in anticipation of the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) wishes to ask, that when I organised demonstrations it was impossible to bring them alongside the House of Commons because Sessional Orders and the state of the law did not allow that? That has subsequently become possible and hon. Members have not easily been able to get into the House for votes or to make their way through crowds. Additionally, the problem outside on the square itself is continuously with us, so we need an updated response.

John McDonnell: It is best not to anticipate questions. Will the Leader of the House clarify the motion before us? It says that the House
	approves the proposals set out in paragraphs 9, 10 and 25 of the Report for changes in the practice of the House at the beginning of each Session.
	Paragraph 25 of the Procedure Committee report proposes a new Sessional Order including the wording:
	that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members  . . . or to hinder Members by any means in the pursuit of their Parliamentary duties.
	When the House reaches a decision on the motion, will we be approving the wording in paragraph 25 as a Sessional Order, or will we still be awaiting the legislation that he proposes to impact on the demonstration?

Peter Hain: We will be doing both, in a way. We will have to wait for legislation because the Sessional Order does not cover the circumstances that currently affect the House.

Simon Hughes: On the same important issue, can I assume that if we agree to the motion we are not approving paragraph 22 of the Procedure Committee report, which proposes that legislation should be introduced to prohibit long-term demonstrations? Is it the case that nothing that we agree today would prevent the man in the middle of Parliament square from remaining there until legislation that we can properly consider is introduced to determine whether one person, or some or many people, should be allowed to stay in Parliament square?

Peter Hain: I can confirm that. If the hon. Gentleman reads paragraph 25 on page 11 of the Procedure Committee report, he will note that the situation is clearly explained.

Several hon. Members: rose

Peter Hain: It might better assist the House if I make a bit of progress.

Patrick Cormack: Just for clarity.

Peter Hain: Well, okay.

Patrick Cormack: The Leader of the House is most kind. I think that I speak for most hon. Members on both sides of the House by saying that the thing that we are most worried about is the defacing of Parliament square that has occurred over the past three years. Will he assure me that any legislation that the Government introduce will apply to what is going on in Parliament square so that the gentleman concernedafter proper notice and following the due process of lawcan be removed?

Peter Hain: The answer to that question is yes, as I shall explain when I manage to reach that point of my speech.

Jeremy Corbyn: I was interested to hear the Leader of the House's response to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) about the current peace protest in Parliament square. Paragraph 25 sets out the suggested Sessional Order under the wording:
	the Order should take the following form.
	Would that be an invitation to the Metropolitan police to clear the central area of Parliament square at all times, or would the status quo be maintained so that demonstrations in that area would be agreeable with the co-operation of the police? The system of co-operation with the police on demonstrations on the grass part of the square works well.

Peter Hain: There are all sorts of anomalies. For example, the square is, I believe, owned and controlled by the Greater London authority. My hon. Friend should accept that if those powers existed, then, following pressure from Members of Parliament and requests from the Speaker, the noise would have been dealt with. A change in the law is needed, particularly to deal with the noise.
	The Government fully accept that maintaining access to Parliament is essential to its working and to our democracy. We must maintain access; otherwise we cannot do our job as representatives in the cockpit of democracy. The police already use their existing powers, including powers under the Public Order Act 1986, to ensure that access to the House is maintained, and our new power will provide them with an additional tool to do so.

Alex Salmond: The right hon. Gentleman said, almost regretfully, that when he was organising demonstrations he could not get into Parliament square. Many of us are reluctant to back the proposal, because we have attended business questions and listened to a number of Members who think it hugely important to moan about people demonstrating. There should be powers to prevent Members of Parliament from being obstructed when voting and carrying out their parliamentary duties, but some people, including many members of the Procedure Committee, if we read the evidence, conflate that with a dislike of people exercising their right to free speech and to demonstrate. I hope that hon. Members, whatever their party, believe that sacrificing that right is too a high a price to pay, even though some people think that it is a nuisance.

Peter Hain: There is a balance to be struck. People must be able to exercise the right to demonstrate and protest, which, as I have stated, is an absolute, traditional and fundamental right in our democratic society. However, as an experienced Member of Parliament, the hon. Gentleman will agree that we must have access to the House. We simply cannot operate on any other basis.
	The Committee's report addresses the use of loudhailers by demonstrators in Parliament square. The Government recognise that the use of loudhailers is of particular concern to Members, who have raised it regularly with me, as has Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will therefore consider using the order-making power in section 62 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, which governs the use of loudhailers in the streets, to ban the use of loudhailers in the area around Parliament square, subject to exemptions in the case, for example, of emergencies. It is intended to lay the necessary secondary legislation before the House as soon as possible in the new Session. Currently, the use of loudhailers in the streets is prohibited only between 9 pm and 8 am.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Leader of the House for giving way againhe has been very generous with his time. Would the order prevent the use of loudhailers in a permanent demonstration such as the one that is currently taking place, or would it apply to approved rallies, such as those that took place during the Iraq war, in the central part of Parliament square, which is controlled by Westminster council with the co-operation of the police?

Peter Hain: Speaking from experience, loudhailers and means of making announcements, as my hon. Friend will know, are necessary during demonstrations to marshal people and shepherd them.

Jeremy Corbyn: And for safety reasons.

Peter Hain: Indeed, they can be used for the orderly progress of a protest. Of course, that will continue to be permitted. However, we are dealing with a persistent bang, bang, bang, which is deafening for Members in the House who, quite understandably, have complained about it, as have members of press and others who work in the Palace.

Julian Lewis: I thank the Leader of the House for giving way yet again. I welcome his announcement while endorsing the comments of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) that properly policed demonstrations should not suffer as a result. Is the Leader of the House aware that existing legislation such as the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which can usually be used to stop incessant noise, includes an exemption for the purposes of political protest? Would he look at that legislation to see whether we could address the issue by ending the exemption?

Peter Hain: I am certainly happy to do so, and I am sure that the Home Secretary will do so as we proceed. However, we are trying to address the situation sensitively and ensure that we do not deal with the problem in a heavy-handed way. I believe that the House would expect us to achieve that balance.

Simon Hughes: May I seek two clarifications? In relation to loudspeakers, is the Leader of the House saying that the primary legislation exists, but no secondary legislation has so far been introduced? If legislation is passed, will it be a civil or criminal matter if somebody acts in breach of it?

Peter Hain: All these matters will be debated in the House when the measure is introduced. As I said, the existing regulations apply between 9 pm and 8 am, and it is the problem that arises outside those times that we need to make progress on.

Oliver Heald: Obviously, there are questions about the area in which the regulations will apply. Many approved demonstrations begin outside Barclays bank and wend their way around Parliament square and up Whitehall. I imagine that that would be perfectly acceptable, but it might help all Members if a draft of the proposed regulations were made available to allow a quick element of consultation before the matter is taken forward.

Peter Hain: That is an interesting point, and I shall certainly bear it in mind, as will the Home Secretary. We are trying to move by consensus. This is a House matter, and we have been criticised, understandably, for being a bit slow on it. We do not want to rush into things. A lot of care has been taken. [Interruption.] We have not been dragging our heels, as I hear impudently suggested, but taking some care, for precisely the reasons that have been raised in voicing concern that we should strike a balance between the rights of our citizens and voters to express their view to us and maintaining the proper access that we require and our ability to go about our business without the kind of harassment that we have had.
	Once new legislation to control demonstrations in Parliament square comes into force, the Procedure Committee considers that the Sessional Order relating to the Metropolitan police will be unnecessary. Meanwhile, the Committee recommends that we continue with the Sessional Order, albeit in an amended form, so as to clarify that it covers the whole parliamentary estate. The motion endorses that proposal. If the House agrees to the motion, at the beginning of the next Session, only that one Sessional Order will be movedthe amended motion on the Metropolitan police.
	In conclusion, I believe that the House as a whole will, as I said at the beginning of my speech, be very grateful to the Procedure Committee for its report and its clear exposition of the issues involved. I believe that the changes proposed to our procedures at the beginning of each Session are a sensible reform, and I commend the motion to the House.

Oliver Heald: I welcome the Procedure Committee's report.

Eric Forth: Do you? Why?

Oliver Heald: Yes, I do, and I offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) on his work and that of his Committee. I also pay tribute to the Committee for its output, which has been impressive over the past year.
	The motion approves paragraphs 9, 10 and 25 of the report, the effect of which is to change the Sessional Orders by discontinuing some of the old and much-loved usages, such as the passing of orders about elections, witnesses and Votes and Proceedings, although the Outlawries Bill will be kept. The report also suggests that a statement of our rights, duties and responsibilities be recorded, and goes on to suggest a new form of the Sessional Order. Although those may seem modest ideas, I ask why some of these charming old traditions need to be abolished. Only last week, we were abolishing the use of the term strangers, which never did anyone any harm. I imagine that the new Labour battalions are lurking somewhere in the building and that, although they are not debating this matter, they are ready to vote solidly with the Leader of the House if that is required.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am genuinely bewildered about why the hon. Gentleman utters the mantra of the Leader of the House when he refers to the Sessional Orders relating to witnesses as outdated. How is that measure outdated? It is essential. I would love to hear from the hon. Gentleman about that.

Oliver Heald: There is legislation that deals with the issue of witnesses, so I would have thought that the measure was not necessary. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, however, on his earlier comments about the Osmotherly rules. The fact that Lord Hutton can come into an inquiry and have all the witnesses and documents that he wants[Interruption.] A point about witnesses has been raised, and as the Osmotherly rules are about the conditions under which the Government allow witnesses to attend Select Committees, there is an overlap.
	It is wrong that all the documents and witnesses in the world were available and put on the internet when we brought in a judge or a retired civil servant, whereas when the Foreign Affairs Committee asked for the same witnesses and documents, it was told that the matter was top secret and that it could not have the information. I remember the Foreign Affairs Committee report, which was stingingly critical of the Government, on that matter. One criticism of the Leader of the House that I make from time to time is why: on earth has he done nothing about it?

Peter Hain: I gave evidence to the Liaison Committee on the Osmotherly rules and made proposals, which were widely welcomed, on how we can move forward. I was surprised when the hon. Gentleman referred to the new Labour battalions, because I have never thought that the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), fits that description.

Oliver Heald: That was a cunning wheeze. The Leader of the House appeared before the Liaison CommitteeI am sure that it was gratefulbut he has yet to find a mechanism by which a Select Committee that asks for a witness or document can speak to the Leader of the House and the Government to explain the importance of the matter and obtain satisfaction.
	At business questions the week before last, I suggested that one way in which to tackle the matter would be to form a sub-committee of the Liaison Committee, which could call in the Leader of the House if a dispute occurred. The Leader of the House dismissed the idea out of hand, but I do not know why, because it seems modest enough. If he will not accept my idea, surely as Leader of the House, who is supposed to uphold the rights of Select Committees, strengthen our procedures and support scrutiny, he must introduce a proposal that will work.

Tony McWalter: I am a member of the Procedure Committee, but as the Leader of the House well knows, I am not a member of the new Labour battalions. Many Sessional Orders were useless because they referred to proceedings in the St. Stephen's area and stopping people impeding MPs as they struggle through Westminster Hall. People were under the illusion that our contributions were protected, when actually they were not, which is why such matters needed adjustment. The adjustment had nothing to do with modernisation.

Oliver Heald: The access provisions were not underpinned by legislation to enable a police officer to enforce the Sessional Orders, and I am glad that the Leader of the House is introducing proposals on that matter. The main focus of today's debate is the effect of demonstrations in or near Parliament square on the work of the House, particularly the long-standing, visually unattractive demonstration that is accompanied by the extensive use of loudhailers, which disrupt the environment for not only hon. Members, but everyone who works here.
	The Procedure Committee put it this way:
	The Government should introduce appropriate legislation to prohibit long-term demonstrations and to ensure that the laws about access are adequate and enforceable. We also expect the appropriate authorities to explore fully the possibility of using existing legislation to control the use of loud-hailers and other amplification equipment; failing that, the Government should consider legislation on this subject.
	The Committee suggested that the mechanism of Sessional Orders is fundamentally insufficient to deal with the current problem, although it recommended that we introduce an interim Sessional Order in the terms set out in paragraph 25, which I support.
	I seek assurances on exactly what the Leader of the House intends to do. The Government response stated that a consultation on developing the right police powers for effective and proportionate action would take place, and he has told us today that an offence of not following Sessional Orders will be created. It is important that the police have enough power to change the situation.
	Is the right hon. Gentleman able to state whether the offence will be arrestable and whether it will be summary only or either way?

David Heath: Should there not be some distinction between an immediate problem of someone preventing an MP from entering the House, which clearly should be an arrestable offence in which the police would be expected to be involved, and a long-term nuisance, which is a civil matter and should be subject to civil remedy, not criminal remedy?

Oliver Heald: I do not agree and I shall explain why.

Alex Salmond: What did the hon. Gentleman think of Mr. Justice Gray's judgment on 4 October 2002, in which he declined to grant Westminster city council an injunction to prevent the long-term demonstration, citing article 10 of the European convention on human rights? Does the hon. Gentleman think Mr. Justice Gray was wise or unwise to refuse to grant the injunction?

Oliver Heald: As one who served as a barrister for many years, I never criticise the judiciary and I shall not do so on this occasion. The point is that we have a say in article 10 and the operation of the convention, whereas we have not had a say in respect of Parliament square, and I believe that we should. I believe in freedom of expression and of speechfor some years, I spoke at Speakers' Corner as a Hyde Park Tory and I have been on demonstrations. It is important that we are able to conduct our politics, but there are parameters within which one should do so.

Julian Lewis: May I remind the House that the court case mentioned by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) had nothing to do with the noise nuisance? Noise did not feature in the judgment and was an entirely separate matter. The judgment was based entirely on whether the protester was obstructing members of the public or Members of Parliament.

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend is correct.
	The long-term protester in question is about to embark on a fourth winter as a permanent resident of Parliament green. Although we can admire its durability, his form of protest causes real problems for Parliament and for others. The problem is not aestheticit is not just that the posters do not look nice or anything like that. The fact is that he has created something akin to a fence-like structure. That mars the appearance of the square, but the main problem is one of security: to allow a barrier of that sort directly opposite the gates of Parliament is unwise. The Speaker has raised that as a point of concern. Police are forced to check around the barrier on the square several times a day to see what is happening behind the posters and placards, and the fence obscures security sightlines. Today's reality is that we cannot ignore such security concerns, and I think that Mr. Speaker is right to have raised the issue.

Lembit �pik: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that those who are concerned about the barrier in Parliament square could also be concerned about someone sneaking around the statue of Churchill and jumping an unsuspecting Member of Parliament on the way home? The police are present in part to defend our right of free expression under duress, and to say that the gentleman in question presents a security risk is a preposterous argument against his right of expression.

Oliver Heald: Nobody minds someone attending to make a protest carrying a bannerthat is part of our democratic process. The point is that that man has set up something like a fence with placards all the way around and the police have to go over there many times a day to check round, because we live in world in which security is tight.

Desmond Swayne: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that there are enough police in and around the Chamber to match the protesters one for one, and if they have to go out and check behind the fence every now and again, they are probably more usefully employed than they are in here?

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend has his fun, as he is entitled to. Nevertheless, security around here is important, and it is not right for there to be a permanent barrier that creates cover directly opposite the gates of the Palace and takes up a huge amount of police time and effort. We should not be too amusing about the police presence here, because they do a good job. We need their help, and it is right that we should have it.

Alex Salmond: I do not know Mr. Justice Gray, but having read his judgment I would strongly advise the hon. Gentleman not to appear before him citing the arguments that he has used in the past few minutes. In effect, the judge said to Westminster city council, Don't come before me with such rubbish.

Oliver Heald: The hon. Gentleman has clearly not looked into this, because the arguments that were deployed were not based on security considerations.
	This is the predominant institution of our democracy and an important symbol of democracy world wide, and it is a terrorist target. Hon. Members may want to have a bit of fun, but these are important matters and we must not ignore them.

Julian Lewis: In support of my hon. Friend, I remind the House that we have armed police on duty who put their lives on the line every minute of the day

Desmond Swayne: What, in the Chamber?

Julian Lewis: I am talking about those on the street. If necessary, they would have to deal with a potentially lethal terrorist attack. How are they expected to make split-second decisions, and to do so wisely, when there is a constant barrage of yammering noise distracting them and putting their safety at risk at a time when it is sufficiently at risk already?

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend rightly raises the issue of noise. Blaring away into a megaphone is a completely pointless exercise, because nobody can understand a word that is being said, yet it disturbs people all over the Palace and the parliamentary estate. I do not mind somebody wanting to protest in a reasonable wayas I say, I have often spoken at speaker's corner in Hyde parkbut the level of noise here is unacceptable, and I welcome the fact that something is going to be done about it.

Paul Tyler: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the matter of security entirely, will he clarify whether he opposes, on security grounds, long-term demonstrations by an individual, but is prepared to accept short-term demonstrations involving thousands of people in Parliament square, which, as we know from recent experience, are far more dangerous?

Oliver Heald: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The point about a major, policed demonstration is that it is exactly thata large demonstration that the police know about in advance and for which they are able to prepare. In the past year, I have been on two such demonstrationsone against the Stansted proposals, and the other in favour of people who have been disadvantaged through the Government's policy on pensions. Proper notice was given, we marched up Whitehall, and the policing was more than adequate.
	The permanent demonstration is different because it is there all the time, it is a fence-like barrier directly opposite the gates of the Palace, it is taking up a lot of police time and effort, and it is a security risk.

John McDonnell: I wish to be clear about the judgment that the hon. Gentleman is making. If the placards were small enough to ensure that a terrorist could not hide behind them and sufficiently aesthetically pleasing to him, would they be acceptable?

Oliver Heald: I have no objection to someoneor a greater number of people standing outside the House of Commons with a banner and making a point. I simply stress that such activities should be carried out in a proportionate way that does not create a security hazard, and that the noise should not be unreasonable. I fully accept that a loudhailer is needed on a demo but constant, loud wailing is not reasonable.

Peter Hain: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that, despite all the discussion about the loudhailer, the sole individual and so on, we are also considering some of the problems that we have experienced recently when access to the House has been blocked. The individual whom we have discussed does not pose such a threat but all sorts of demonstrations, including those on hunting and Iraq, have, for the first time in my experience, blocked access to the House. That is the problem and the measures are primarily designed to deal with that.

Oliver Heald: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for making that point; I was sidetracked when I was about to make it. It has always been established that hon. Members should have access to the House to do their job, especially when we are voting, so that democracy can do its work. The measures will underpin that well established principle with the sort of powers that are needed to make it work.

John McDonnell: I remain unclear about the process that we are going through today. I would welcome any intervention from the Chairman of the Committee to clarify exactly what we are doing. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House told us that consultation will take place to seek a remedy in law to some of the problems that the Committee identified. He said that consultation would take place about the development of a new measure and that an order would be introduced under existing environmental legislation to tackle the supposed nuisance or problem.
	Yet we are also being asked to support a motion with a form of words for a new Sessional Order, which tries to provide a remedy for several problems that the Committee identified. The Sessional Order is incredibly wide-ranging. It states:
	That the Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis do take care that the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open.
	We all agree that enabling Members of Parliament to get into the House of Commons to do their duty in voting and participating in debate is criticalno one wants to underestimate the problems that have occurredbut the order goes far beyond that.
	The Sessional Order suggests that it is needed to oppose any activities
	to hinder Members by any means in the pursuit of their Parliamentary duties in the Parliamentary Estate.
	The breadth of that is remarkable. It covers any activity that we undertake to hinder hon. Members. I want to hinder some of my hon. Friends in reaching some decisions on specific Bills. I want to do that through argument, lobbying and debate. [Interruption.] The breadth of the order means that an individualwhether or not the placard is small or a terrorist threat existscannot stand outside the House.

Alex Salmond: The hon. Gentleman may have missed the sedentary intervention from the Front Bench that I heard, implying that what he described did not constitute hindering. However, in the absence of a definition of hindering, what else are we to think? Some hon. Members appear to believe that noise pollution hinders; I do not. I should like to know exactly what hindering means.

John McDonnell: That is the very point that I am making. If hindering is about noise that causes some obstruction to clear thought or work in an officethere are other obstructions to clear thought in the building, but we do not need to go into them nowperhaps we could have a definition of an acceptable decibel level or the problems that some hon. Members experience.

Oliver Heald: It is my understanding that the question of noise is being dealt with separately from the Sessional Order in paragraph 25. Paragraph 25 is about access to the building.

John McDonnell: I have to say that that is not what the Sessional Order says. This order will have to be interpreted by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and I think that we are putting him in an impossible position because of the breadth and loose wording of the order, which states that
	no obstruction be permitted . . . to hinder Members by any means in pursuit of their Parliamentary duties in the Parliamentary Estate.
	That is a breathtaking range of provision to insist that the commissioner should interpret. Individual constituents, Members or members of staff could insist that the commissioner take action, but against what? Perhaps against a megaphone being used in Parliament square, but at what level? On what frequency? On what days? At what time of day? According to the Sessional Order, the provision would apply when Parliament was in session, but that could be late at night when there was not much going on in the building. This measure would require a subjective judgment on the part of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, which I think would be inoperable.

Oliver Heald: The particular wording that the hon. Gentleman is criticising has been in the Sessional Orders since time immemorial. The provision used to be enforced by the police, but a change in the law means that that no longer happens. However, this is nothing new; it is very old.

John McDonnell: But now we are trying to use the order against a practice that has been acceptable for a long time. It has certainly been acceptable for the past few years, because Brian Haw has been out there for that long. It has been acceptable behaviour to a large number of us.
	I am trying to clarify this question. If the Minister is arguing that we need to consult on new legislation, and that, in regard to some of this supposed nuisance behaviour, we have to introduce a new order that we shall eventually debate, why is that taking place when we are introducing a Sessional Order? Are we pre-empting that consultation? Are we pre-empting the debate on the new order? Why is this necessary? I am completely unclear on this, and I would welcome any intervention that will clarify the matter.

Julian Lewis: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) has explained, the provision has been there all along. It has also been ineffectiveI see the Minister noddingwhich is why the Government have, rightly, to introduce new legislation. The hon. Gentleman is arguing that we should weaken the Sessional Order more than it has been weakened in the past. This proposal is carrying forward something which, though ineffective, has been there all along, with a promise that something effective will be brought in further down the lineand about time, too.

John McDonnell: So we are being asked to approve something that we all agree is totally ineffective, totally useless and therefore unnecessary. What are we doing here? What is the point? Well, we know what the point is. It is that one person out there is exercising his democratic right to free speech. When Ministers introduce legislation, they have to assure us in writing, as part of the process, that it complies with the European convention on human rights. What is remarkable about this order is that we have had no such assurance today in relation to it.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is lamenting the need to interpret the legislation, while at the same time effectively conceding how easy it will be to do so in this particular, rather extreme case. I know the vantage point from which he is perfectly legitimately approaching the subject. We all believe in the right to free speechI am periodically inclined to exercise it myselfbut there is a difference between free speech and a licensed, permanent cacophony of a destructive character.

John McDonnell: That is interesting. In none of the submissions to the Committee that I have seen has there been any mention of permanent cacophony. It is true that there has been intermittent use of a loudhailer, and I am sure that that has caused some offence to some people, but I think that that is one of the tolerances that we should have in a democracy. With the greatest respect, I find some of the statements that are made in this Chamber offensive, but I accept the democratic right of hon. Members to make them. I also accept the right of Brian Haw to make his statement out there. As soon as we start to undermine that process of free speech, it becomes a slippery slope to intolerance.

Lembit �pik: Is it not perhaps in order for us to remember as well that we are in a position of relative power in this Chamber? We have the capacity to express our views and occasionally get them reported in the media. A man such as Brian Haw does not have that luxury. It is to his credit that he has caused a debate to take place on account of the fact that he has found an effective means of demonstrating.

John McDonnell: It is a means of demonstration that also shadows what has happened across the world. The Aborigines in Australia and the campaigners in America have all used this tactic to bring something that they feel strongly about to the attention of democratic Parliaments. I welcome Brian Haw. I think he has been a hero for the past few years, suffering throughout those winters to bring to our attention a fundamental issue, which is about peace and opposing war.
	On some objections that have been made to Brian Haw, I accept the integrity of a large number of Members who have intervened today to raise their concerns about nuisance and so on, but some interventions and some opposition to what he is doing out there have arisen because some Members do not like to be reminded of what they have done in this Chamber in terms of voting for war and the deaths.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will restrict his remarks to the motion on the Order Paper.

John McDonnell: I will not contradict your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the point of Brian Haw's protest is to ensure that we listen to him. If we silence him, we will be unable to listen to that message, which is one of peace that opposes some decisions of the House. One of the roles of an MP is to defend the democratic rights of the citizens of this country. That is what we are threatening. This is not to do with noise or nuisance; it is to do with removing the little man's voice from outside the Chamber.

Peter Hain: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not defend this examplein fact, I know he would criticise it. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) tried to enter the House during the hunting demonstration and was virtually beaten up. We have to move forward in dealing with such problems. The issue of the loudhailer is one small part of a much wider picture and we really must deal with it. I am sure he agrees with that. I think he should be more proportionate about the points that he is understandably making.

John McDonnell: Is that an allegation that Brian Haw has at any time tried to prevent Members from coming to the House, because he has not, and no one has ever alleged it? We are introducing a Sessional Order and then legislation to obviate one evilpreventing Members from having access to the Housewhile at the same time wiping out the democratic rights of an individual. The breadth of potential interpretation is what is abhorrent about the Sessional Order. We are also going through a lengthy process of introducing new legislationa new order to quell the voice of one man who speaks for the majority of the population of this country, against war and for peace.

Paul Tyler: I am always rather uncomfortable when we have a discussion that appears to be ad hominem, so I shall not follow precisely the line pursued by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), but I want to remind the House that, long before the particular individual whom we have been discussing was permanently installed, a pig named Winston was present. I do not recall any Opposition Member objecting to the presence of that pig, although it was just as untidy as the gentleman to whom we are referring.

Julian Lewis: Did it have a loudhailer?

Paul Tyler: It did not, but those who were with it had very loud voices, and rightly so, because they were making an important point on behalf of my constituents, as it happensthose involved in agriculture.
	I want to return to the report and the motion. Recommendations 1, 2 and 3, which the Government accept, are very sensible. They should be endorsed by the House. Recommendation 4 relates to the new statement that is to be made giving details of the
	historic claims to privilege including those of freedom of speech and freedom from legal challenge.
	That obviously is important, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said, there surely must be a proposal as to what will be said in that statement. I do not know why we have waited so long, because the report was made to the House in November last year, and we could by now have seen a draft. I hope that we will see one before the general election.
	Clearly, however, the main matter for consideration this evening is recommendation 5. I want to read that again to the House:
	The Government should introduce appropriate legislation to prohibit long-term demonstrations.
	That gives rise to all sorts of problems of definition. What is a long-term demonstration? If an individual comes and goes regularly but intermittently, is that a long-term demonstration? If we have a very large demonstration that raises the security issues referred to earlier, and it takes more than 24 hours, is that a long-term demonstration? What is the difference? I am suspicious of that recommendation, and to be fair, so are the Government, whose response states:
	The Government's first principle is that the right of free expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights should be protected.
	Furthermore, they do not ask us to endorse paragraph 22 and recommendation 5. There were concerns in the Committee about the recommendation, as was obvious from the evidence given to it, and as I know from Members present this evening. I therefore hope that we will make progress very slowly on that recommendation. It could be, as hon. Members have said, a slippery slope.
	There is something to be welcomed and celebrated about the fact that the main focus of demonstration has in recent months moved from opposite Downing street into Parliament square. I hope that that is recognition that Parliament still has a role in our political society, and that the body politic is not exclusively in Whitehall. It is extremely helpful that people now recognise that speaking to Members of Parliament, albeit occasionally through loudhailers, might have some practical impact. It is much better than simply shouting at No. 10 and assuming that that is the only place in which power lies.
	I understand the concerns of members of the public about trying to ensure that their voice is heard. These days, it is difficult. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) referred to himself as a member of the Hyde Park ToriesI am not quite sure what that describedbut there is a case for a designated area in an appropriate part of London where people can speak their mind and have an audience that is attentive and perhaps even influential. Perhaps he would join me in suggesting that we move speakers' corner from Hyde park to St. James's park[Hon. Members: Connaught square.] Hon. Members are suggesting other parts of London, but I am not quite sure why. Perhaps it is opposite the residence of a particular individual.

Oliver Heald: What I heard was Connaught square, which I believe is where the Prime Minister has bought his new house.

Paul Tyler: I see. I thought it was the hon. Gentleman's house. I thought that he had moved up in the world, too.
	There is an extremely important issue at stake. To some extent, the Government are attempting to push it sideways, with references to the Mayor of London's World Squares for All proposals for Parliament square. I cannot quite see the Mayor of London addressing the issue in the way that I would prefer, but he may have a different view from the Government's. What is extremely important is that the Government go on to say that there will be a consultation exercise, but they seek to limit the remit of that consultation exercise to developing police powers. That must be in the context of the rights of the individual in this country to represent his or her views. The Leader of the House has already said that there is existing legislation to deal with disruptive, dangerous or threatening activities that may concern us in our duties in the House.

John Bercow: I very much admire the hon. Gentleman, but may I put it to him that although the House should have self-respect it should not practise self-delusion? I put it to him that the reason why Mr. Haw continues to indulge in his rancid rants opposite the House of Commons is not that he wishes to pay tribute to Parliament but that he knows that he is able to get off scot-free. That is partly because of the rank naivety of the hon. Gentleman and others.

Paul Tyler: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I will defend the right of people who disagree with me to express their views. The hon. Gentleman may well disagree with members of my farming community in Cornwall who express their views in a similar way on a similar site in Parliament square, but I do not recall his objecting.
	The House must consider this carefully. If, in the interests of tidiness, we are in any way to undermine the legitimate concerns of our constituents and the public at largeif we are to extinguish long-standing rightslet us do it with our eyes open, and not because we have suddenly joined the Keep Britain Tidy campaign. There is existing legislation to deal with the threats that we all understand are there. I found the flight of fantasy from the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire extraordinary. There are security issues, but they are not there now, and they are not involved in the proposed change to our Sessional Orders.
	It is certainly important for us to look carefully at the issue of access, for a number of reasonsaccess for Members, staff and constituents wishing to come here on legitimate business. The order, however, does not deal with that. I accept that the existing order has been there for some time, but as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington pointed out, if it has not proved satisfactory in the past why should we repeat it now? The current wording of the revised order is surely redundant. It says:
	to hinder Members by any means in the pursuit of their Parliamentary duties in the Parliamentary Estate.
	That section does not deal with those who are trying to get into the parliamentary estate. The revised order seems to ignore the whole question of access.

Nicholas Winterton: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with some impatience. It seems to me that he has not read the report in full, and has not taken note of the fact that we received representations and evidence from the Metropolitan Police Commissioner himself, the Serjeant at Arms, the Clerk of the House and others associated with the security and administration of the parliamentary estate. Does he give no weight to the evidence and views of those who have looked after this place for hundreds of years?

Paul Tyler: I am a great fan of the hon. Gentleman and of the traditions of the House, but I have read the evidence in the report, and it is far from clear that there is unanimity. I wish there were, because that would make it much easier for us. I also have great respect for the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, but let us face it: the police made some absurd mistakes on the day of the hunting demonstration. It was their fault that people came into this place disguised as building workers; it was no fault of officers of the House. I take with a pinch of salt the suggestion in the evidence that the commissioner is seeking new powers. Whenever the police seek new powers, I think it the right and responsibility of Members to establish why the existing powers are not sufficient.

Oliver Heald: Much has been made of the permanent demonstration. The commissioner spoke of what happened four years ago when there was a demonstration, Parliament square was cut up and statues were damaged. He said that there should be stronger powers to tackle such dangerous incidents. I do not think we should spend the entire debate speaking about Mr. Haw.

Paul Tyler: I entirely agree, which is why I want to return to recommendation 7. It is clear from the recommendationI understand that the Government accept thisthat the legislation they are now considering, in a wider sense, will require extensive consultation, for reasons that I think all hon. Members would appreciate. The new Sessional Order is essentially an interim measure, and a very insubstantial and probably rather ineffective one.
	What happens next? I am always slightly suspicious of secondary legislation, and the suggestion that everything will be straightforwardthat it is just a matter of detail, and that the wish of the House is being implemented. It is easy for us to agree to that. The Leader of the House said earlier that this would be a matter for secondary legislation. I hope that there will be the fullest possible consultation, and that we will have a full opportunity to examine the implications of that secondary legislation. All too often, such legislation goes through with insufficient scrutiny. That is a major criticism of our parliamentary procedure, and this particular issue surely requires very careful scrutiny indeed.
	Yes, we need to strike a balance. In considering access to this place, we have to ensure that Members, their staff and constituents, and the staff of the House are protected. That is critical, and we cannot afford to allow undue pressure to be applied that prevents us from doing our duty, but equally, in terms of freedom speech, one of our duties is to ensure that members of the public are not impeded if they want to exercise their right and duty to express their views in a democratic society. The balance between those two conflicting pressures is a very difficult one to strike, and it requires that all Members of the Housenot just somebody Upstairs in Committeeconsider them very carefully.
	I hope that in responding to this debate the Minister will make it clear that this matter will be given careful consideration, so that we do not end up with a very unbalanced situation.

Tony McWalter: I will not detain the House for long, but there are just a couple of observations that I would like to make. First, we should dissociate the question of access to the House from what is currently going on in Parliament square, inasmuch as we can. Unlike the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), I consider the Procedure Committee's proposalI am a member of that Committeeto be effective. It orders that
	no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from this House,
	and subsequently refers to the duties that we carry on in the House. Such duties are the very reason why we are trying to ensure that Members are not so obstructed, so the proposal makes eminent sense.
	In my view, the police need this reminder. On both of the two occasions on which I was prevented from entering the House, the police were responsible. When George W. Bush was in the areaI understand that he has been re-elected President of the United StatesI and other MPs were prevented from getting anywhere near the House of Commons for some considerable time. [Interruption.] I note that other Members did indeed experience such a problem. Whatever the commissioner understood about his responsibility to ensure that Members of Parliament could actually get here to perform their duties, that message somehow failed to percolate down to officers controlling the area. They treated Members of Parliament as if they were members of the public, who could be directed as and when they wished.

Alex Salmond: The hon. Gentleman is making a very interesting point. If the Government proceed with criminal legislation, who might be prosecuted if such circumstances are repeated? Would he like to venture an answer?

Tony McWalter: I am tempted to say that if members of the police force do not carry out their duties, they would be subject to the normal process of police discipline for failing to understand and act on their responsibilities. I rather doubt whether the laws that we get will push things any further than that, but Members will also know that historically, this Chamber has been ringed with policemen to prevent Members from entering. I know that we are talking about the 17th century, but that is how Cromwell succeeded in getting complete control of the parliamentary process.
	So there is an historical precedent to show that, if one wants to turn democracy into tyranny, the first thing to do is to ensure that Members of Parliament cannot sit on these Benches and discuss matters in the way that we are currently doing. The House needs to be very mindful of that pivotal right. It is a pivotal right not only for Members of Parliament, but for the 56 million people whom we represent when we come here. We are the custodians of their freedoms, and our freedom is a condition of that. So this is not a trivial matter, and we need to ensure that that right is properly protected.
	The second issue that I wish to raise relates to the suggestion that all MPs should wear an identity card for security purposes. I would like to make a couple of points about that. On the other occasion when I was stopped from entering the House, the officer on the door did not just ask whether I was an MPI said yesbut also whether I had my identity card. I scrambled around in my pockets but was unable to find it. I was detained nearly beyond the end of a vote, but just about managed to get in at the very last minute.
	If it became a condition for entry to the Palace that one had to have a pass, it would pose many interesting issues. First, Members could forget their pass; it could be lost or stolen. In many ways, the requirement to use a pass could prove a significant obstacle to Members carrying out their duties. I heard one Member say last week, MPs want to be privileged, being the only people who do not have to wear a pass, but the answer to that is that as few obstacles as possible should be put in the way of MPs who come here to participate in debates. Any requirement to wear a pass could certainly compromise that freedom.
	Demonstrations in Parliament square are a separate issue. I have already provided my own example to show that Members are sometimes prevented from entering the Palace. Not having a clear understanding of the rights of people in Parliament square is another important component of the problem. We need to sort out whether people can have a permanent encampment and whether hundreds of thousands of people can be allowed there. We need to make clear exactly what rights people have. I insist that that be factored in, of course, with the rights of Members of Parliament to unhindered passage to this place in order to perform their duties in the House. That is the most important matter. It is vital to have facilities for demonstrations and perhaps we should look into their longevity, intermittence and similar issues. Crucially, the right of MPs to get into the House is a fundamental part of our democracy, so I hope that Members will accept the recommendations of the Procedure Committee.

Nicholas Winterton: I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter), who is a hardworking member of the Procedure Committee, bringing independence and objectivity to the views that he expresses in considering the matters on which we take evidence and produce reports.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to support the Government motion and to speak about the Procedure Committee's report. Perhaps you will allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to say that the structure of these debates puts the Committee's Chairman in some difficulty. Many Front Benchers and a number of Back Benchers have spoken, and it is wrong that the Chairman is not allowed to express the views of the Procedure Committee to the House before others get up to criticise it.
	Let me respond immediately to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). In no way are we seeking to end demonstrations in Parliament square. In no way are we seeking to deny people the right of free speech or the right to make their views clear and well known to Members of Parliament. What we are seeking to do is to use Parliament square in a far better fashion. I believe that Mr. Haw has been there for some considerable timeat least three years. We believe that that is rather long for one demonstrator to do what he is doing there. In being there, he may well be deterring other groups or other individuals from exercising their right of free speech, and they might do it in a rather better way than Mr. Haw.

John McDonnell: Did the Committee receive any evidence from other groups to the effect that Mr. Haw had prevented them from demonstrating in Parliament square?

Nicholas Winterton: We received evidence from Members of Parliament, including the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn)he is sitting next to the hon. Gentleman this afternoonbecause we wanted to take evidence from everyone who had a view on this matter. That included people who were strongly opposed to the demonstrations in Parliament square, people who were rather equivocal about demonstrations, and people like the hon. Member for Islington, North, who were positively in favour of people being able to demonstrate.

John McDonnell: My question is, did anyone suggest in evidence that Mr. Haw was preventing others from demonstrating in the square? That is not recorded in any of the minutes.

Nicholas Winterton: That view was expressed, although it may not have been minuted in the report. The view was put forward that Mr. Haw could be preventing other individuals or groups from demonstrating who wished to do so. I believe that the hon. Gentleman would not be unsympathetic to other groups using the square for that purpose, or to Mr. Haw returning at some stage in the future.

Lembit �pik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nicholas Winterton: No, as I want to be logical and constructive about this matter. I say to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington that, if a man cannot make his point and get his view across in three years, he will not do it in 30 years. Parliament square should be the place where other people can register their views. The Procedure Committee heeded the advice of those from whom we took evidence. They included the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, the Clerk of the House and the Serjeant at Arms. We also received the encouragement of Mr. Speaker, who is deeply concerned about the situation in Parliament square. Our aim is not to deny free speech or people's right to demonstrate, but to ensure that those activities are conducted in a more regulated and appropriate way.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for allowing me to present evidence to his Committee when it investigated this matter. Numerous other demonstrations have taken place while Brian Haw has been in the square. On one slightly bizarre occasion, I was talking to him when he decided he wanted a photograph of him in conversation with some peace protesters visiting from Canada. He went off and got one of the hunt supporters to take the photograph. The two sides seemed to have worked out a modus operandi, even though I suspect that they probably did not agree on anything.

John Bercow: That is a case of exceptional charity.

Nicholas Winterton: I do not know about that. On most occasions, I very strongly disagree with the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman. However, I have the highest regard for him, as he is brave in his advocacy of   free speech and of the issues that he feels are of paramount importance to this country and deserving of being raised in Parliament. In no way am I hostile to the hon. Gentleman: I want the situation in Parliament square to be regulated.

Alex Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nicholas Winterton: Of course I shall give way to my very good friend from north of Hadrian's wall.

Alex Salmond: That will not help. I yield to no one in my admiration of the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, as he knows. That is why so many of us are so disappointed that he should suggest Mr. Haw's failure to put across his point in three years as the reason for introducing measures that, at least at first sight, appear somewhat draconian. It is our disappointment that the hon. Gentleman's usual strong defence of free speech is not represented in the report that is causing us to make these interventions.

Nicholas Winterton: I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the report. In no way are we trying to deny free speech: quite the opposite. In many ways, we are trying to give more people the opportunity of free speech in Parliament square.

Lembit �pik: rose

Nicholas Winterton: I shall give way later on, but I should like to develop my argument as Chairman of the Committee.
	I am grateful that the motion implements nearly all the Committee's recommendations, although I shall have something briefly to say about Parliament square a little later on. Let us go back into the history of these matters. As hon. Members will be aware, at the beginning of each Session we hear the Queen's Speech in the morning and we return in the afternoon to debate it, but before the debate begins the House is asked to agree six questions. Because it is the first day of the Session no notice can be given of the questions, so Mr. Speaker reads them in full to the House. They are the Sessional Orders and resolutions; the current ones are set out on page 3 of the Procedure Committee's report. They relate to elections, witnesses, the Metropolitan police and the Votes and Proceedings.
	As we note in our report, it was Mr. SpeakerI highlight that pointwho encouraged us to look at those orders and resolutions to consider whether they should be abolished or updated. As Members will see, we recommended, with only one exception, that they should be abolished. That was not an easy decision for me to takeI say that especially to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)because I am a great traditionalist and I like some of the older features of the way the House operates, but we cannot stand against change when change is inevitable.
	The one exception was the order instructing the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to prevent access to the House from being impeded. That order took up most of the Committee's time and I shall return to it after dealing with the other five

Eric Forth: rose

Nicholas Winterton: But first I give way without hesitation to my right hon. Friend.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my modernising Friend. To help the House, will he elaborate on the phrase he has just used, when change is inevitable? I would have thought that the whole point of our deliberations was to decide whether change was desirable and not for us to proceed on the basis of some odd inevitability.

Nicholas Winterton: I have great regard and respect for Mr. Speaker, so perhaps when I said that change was inevitable I should have added that it should also be justified.
	I repeat that Mr. Speaker was concerned, and if, on behalf of the House, Mr. Speaker requests us to investigate a matter, we are obliged to do so. We took wide evidence, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will see, and came to the conclusion that most of the orders were no longer relevant.

Oliver Heald: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) made a point about tampering with witnesses. Does my hon. Friend agree that the House has the power to deal with that, but it was rather inappropriate to put that matter alongside one that we had no power to deal with? Does he agree that the powers to deal with witnesses still exist and that there is no question of their going?

Nicholas Winterton: If my hon. Friend will be patient, I intend to come on to that matter.

John Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Nicholas Winterton: I cannot refuse my hon. Friend.

John Bercow: On the Conservative Benches, following the dictum of Edmund Burke, we have always accepted that the state which lacks the means of change lacks the means of its own conservation. May I further encourage my senior hon. Friend not to be subjected to parliamentary bullying by our right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)? In the earlier debate, when I chided my right hon. Friend for being opposed to all change since the 11th century, he corrected me by saying that he had in fact been opposed to all change since the fourth.

Nicholas Winterton: I am a very good friend of the hon. Member for Buckingham, so I am delighted that he has, on this occasion, come so robustly to my defence.
	All the current Sessional Orders and resolutions date back to at least 1713, and many of them are even older than that. However, I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that they have not been considered unalterable. Several were converted into Standing Orders in 1852 and others, such as those about peers not voting in parliamentary elections and the printing of the Journal, were discontinued quite recently, in 2000. Various other minor changes have been made to them over the years.
	The Procedure Committeeagain, I highlight thistook detailed evidence from the Clerk of the House, a learned gentleman who serves the House well, and from the Serjeant at Arms. We discovered that the orders about elections, witnesses and the votes and proceedings could all be dispensed with. That was their advice to the Committee. Some were unnecessary, some were obsolete and at least one was misleading. I refer to the order that says that
	this House will proceed with the utmost severity
	against those engaging in corrupt practices at elections. I am not for a moment suggesting that corrupt practices do not matter, but simply that the House has not been able to proceed against them since 1868, when jurisdiction on such matters was transferred to the courts.
	Why do we proceed with reading out long Sessional Orders that are obsolete? The provisions for double returns are no longer necessary. They applied when there was a tie and the returning officer returned two names for a constituency instead of one. Now, in the event of a tie, the choice is made by lot. Why is that Sessional Order required? It is no longer needed; it is obsolete.
	One other provision is probably obsolete, but it could theoretically still be needed. This is the one about a Member being returned for more than constituency. I am not sure whether the House knows when this last occurred, but it last happened in 1910. In case it happens again, the relevant part of the Sessional Order about elections is reproduced at the end of the day's motion to make it permanent.
	Among the unnecessary motions are those about witnesses. In recommending the abolition of those motions, we are not ascribing any less importance to the principles that witnesses should not give false evidence or be tampered with. I see the Committee's chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), behind me, and hon. Members will surely recall that a case was referred to the Standards and Privileges Committee this Session

Oliver Heald: The case of the Lord Chancellor.

Nicholas Winterton: Indeed. However, we do not need to say something about such cases every year. That is now part of the longstanding practice of the House.

Andrew MacKinlay: rose

Nicholas Winterton: I give way to another Government Member for whom I have enormous admiration.

Andrew MacKinlay: Likewise, but the hon. Gentleman's admiration may be against his better judgment. However, does he realise that the Sessional Orders are the only thing that we have to caution witnesses and those people who would lean on witnesses? The orders afford some protection to those who might be leant on. The fact that they have not been drawn to anyone's attention is the real problem.

Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has made his point to the House and I am sure that it will be noted by the Deputy Leader of the House and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). As we say at paragraph 10 of our report, the survival of the Sessional Orders for so long may reflect a desire by the House to begin the Session with a reminder of matters that it considers important. Certainly the issue to which the hon. Gentleman has just drawn attention is important.
	As I hope I have made clear, we believe that the Sessional Orders are no longer appropriate for that purpose, but we have suggested that, instead, Mr. Speaker might make a statement about the duties and responsibilities of Members. I believe that that will be very useful to the House, and the House, my Committee and Mr. Speaker will clearly turn their attention to it.
	We also recommend the continuation of the First Reading of the Outlawries Bill. That takes only a few seconds and serves to remind the House of an important principle. Once Parliament has been opened, it does not have to begin a Session by considering the Queen's Speech. It can, if it wishes, consider other business.
	I return to the Sessional Order that has dominated the debate: that on access to the House. I tell the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington and for Islington, North that the order, like the others, is nearly 300 years old, so it is much older than the Metropolitan police to whom it is now addressed. As hon. Members will note, it includes a provision to prevent disorder in Westminster Hall, but we think that that has become unnecessary because Westminster Hall is now within the parliamentary estate and the precincts of the House.
	At the beginning of the 19th century, the order also provided that there should be no annoyance by chairmen. Quite by chance, I have an interesting extract from the Journal of the House from the year of 1801, and I hope that hon. Members will not mind if I read it out. It says:
	Ordered, That the Constables in Waiting do take Care that there be no Gaming, or other Disorders, in Westminster Hall, or the Passages leading to the House, during the Sitting of Parliament; and that there be no Annoyance by Chairmen, Footmen, or otherwise, therein or thereabouts.
	Of course, those chairmen were not Chairmen of Committees, but those who would be at either end of a sedan chair. I thus do not take the matter, which was drawn to my attention by the Clerk of the Procedure Committee, too personally, although having recently injured my Achilles' tendon, I could do with the use of a number of chairmen and a sedan chair to get around the Palace of Westminster.

Alex Salmond: This is all rollicking good stuff, as we expect from the hon. Gentleman. Will he tell us where the specific phrase in paragraph 25 of the report that says
	or to hinder Members by any means in the pursuit of their Parliamentary duties
	is currently contained in the existing Sessional Order, printed on page 3 of the report?

Nicholas Winterton: May I come back to that, even if I perhaps do so after I have finished my speech, because I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a direct answer off the cuff? I know that he would not want me to give him false information, because he and I have an understanding that we are always direct with each other.
	Although the existing Order has a quaint aspect, it has a serious side, too. I am sure that most hon. Members agree that access to the House should be preserved at all times so that its work may go on uninterrupted. I suspect that hon. Members believe that the Order gives the Metropolitan police extra powers to ensure that that occurs, but unfortunately that is not the case. No Order of the Houseneither the current one nor any revised onecan give the police extra powers, which to an extent addresses a concern raised earlier by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. Powers relating to London exist in the Metropolitan Police Act 1839, but they are largely unenforceable.
	Measures to prevent large numbers of people from approaching the House for specific purposes were repealed in 1986. I know that because on at least two occasions I took part in demonstrations in support of textile workers and those in this country's textile and clothing industriesthey still have my support. We were allowed to march from Hyde park, but the closest we could come to the Palace of Westminster was the Tate gallery, because we were governed by the legislation that existed prior to 1986. The law on demonstrations that block access to Parliament is in practice exactly the same as the one applying to demonstrations elsewhere in the country.
	I repeat and emphasise the point that we are not calling for a ban on demonstrations. As we say in paragraph 11 of the report:
	the right to demonstrate peacefully is highly prized and is a fundamental right, and we have no desire to prevent the public expressing their concerns to Members of Parliament in this way.

John McDonnell: Further to the intervention by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), the words to be inserted in the new Sessional Order do not exist in the old one, and greatly expand the advice that we are giving the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) is arguing that he simply wants to regulate demonstrations, but he has not given us any information about how that is to be done. Will they be licensed, and will the licence have to be paid for? Is he going to set up a regulator called Ofdemo?

Nicholas Winterton: I fear that those questions should be put not to me but to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Don Valley, and the Government. We have highlighted a problem that requires attention. However, I am grateful for much of what the Leader of the House said.

Lembit �pik: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that with the best will in the world his proposals will almost certainly have the unintended consequence of restricting demonstrations? For example, he thought that Mr. Haw could be prevented from demonstrating in Parliament square, but there could be a continuous demonstration on a rotating basis. He cannot have it both wayshe must accept either that there is a continuous demonstration by different people or that demonstration is limited.

Nicholas Winterton: Personally, I believe that there could be many demonstrations, but longstanding demonstrations by individuals should be regulated and come to an end. If other people want to come and demonstrate in their place, they can do so. However, more stringent regulations are needed because of the environmental and heritage importance of Parliament square.

Oliver Heald: The original text includes the words
	that there be no annoyance therein or thereabouts.

John McDonnell: That applies to Westminster Hall.

Oliver Heald: No, it applies to a much a wider area and covers all the environs of Parliament. The new wording is as follows:
	to hinder Members by any means in the pursuit of their Parliamentary duties.
	If anything, that is a narrower definition.

Nicholas Winterton: Following the quote that I read out a moment ago, I should highlight the fact that that is not the same as preventing access to Parliament. Demonstrations should not prevent hon. Members from reaching the House, as the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter), a member of the Procedure Committee, said. The police tell us that they need powers to ensure uninterrupted access. Although the order deals with access, we also considered the related matter of the nuisance caused by demonstrations in Parliament squareboth the unsightly nature of long-term demonstrations in a world heritage site and, perhaps more importantly, the noise from megaphones and amplifiers, which prevent people in nearby offices from doing their work properly. I have seen evidence that members of the public are grossly inconvenienced by the raucous noise emanating from those megaphones.

Julian Lewis: My hon. Friend neatly anticipates my concern about noise. Can he confirm that, whatever demonstrations are allowed, whether they are individual, long-term, short-term or, indeed, rotating, it is important that they should not cause annoyance by bombarding people doing legitimate work with incessant sound? Does he also accept that while loudhailers are, as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) rightly pointed out, essential to communicate with people participating in a set-piece demonstration, it is an abuse to use them continually to interfere with people who are not part of the demonstration?

Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend anticipates what I am about to say. The Committee simply could not understand why the noise is allowed to go on, day after day, given all the recent legislation on noisy neighbours. Attempting to prevent long-term demonstrations may be controversialand hon. Members have expressed such a concernbut we think that that should be done while allowing short-term demonstrations, provided that they do not impede access or produce unreasonable amounts of noise.

Alex Salmond: We are now coming to the nub of the issue. What I would like to know is where the phrase
	or hinder Members by any means
	comes from. Did it come from the Committee Clerk, or was it a joint production of the Committee? Was the Committee influenced by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who is so worried and concerned about noise pollution? Where did the phrase come from and what does it mean?

Nicholas Winterton: I can only say that it was the wording chosen by the Committee as a whole, with the advice of our Clerk, and as Chairman, I therefore take full responsibility for it. I say those words with Ministers present on the Treasury Bench.
	The Government undertook at paragraph 7 of their reply to the report to consult on ensuring that the police have power to actagain, I address my remarks to the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington and for Islington, Northeffectively and proportionately in relation to activities near Parliament. That consultation took place as part of a wider Home Office consultation on modernising police powers. We know that, and I accept that process, which closed recently, on 8 October.

Tony McWalter: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is about to emphasise that many of the orders relate to Parliament proceeding with severity, although he is now making the completely accurate point that these duties have to be reposited in the police. In the 1840s, Parliament imprisoned an Irish Member for failing to sign up to a Committee on the basis that his not doing so destroyed the work of the Committee. He was imprisoned here for a week by Members of Parliament, but those days are gone, and we have to have a new agency dealing with these matters.

Nicholas Winterton: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that Parliament should once again assume those powers and authorities. I fear that, on both sides of the House, there would be a number of people whom we would like to see locked away.

David Taylor: Would not imposing in the 21st century the punishment of being confined to the Chamber with some speakers whom we could name be categorised in Europe and elsewhere as a cruel and unnatural punishment?

Nicholas Winterton: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is not referring to the person who currently has Mr. Deputy Speaker's permission to speak. I know the hon. Gentleman well and I know that he is not doing that, but I would be inclined to agree with him.
	I am grateful to the Government for what they have said today in respect of taking action both about demonstrations, and perhaps the unsightly nature of some of them, and about the raucous noise, which disturbs not only tourists and other members of the public in and around Parliament square, but Members of the House, staff of the House and those who work in the proximity of the square.
	I make my next point just as the Leader of the House is leavinghe has returned; I did not know I had that influence. To follow up the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire, I ask the Government to look at this matter urgently, seek to introduce orders or legislation taking account of the views that have been expressed by those who are concerned that we are not trying to limit demonstrations, and to ensure that action is taken as urgently as possible, not only to enhance Parliament square and to ensure that demonstrations are more regulated in future, but also to act in a modest way in respect of security. This House is spending very large sums on security, and we should not ignore that.
	In the meantime, although I accept that what has been said so far could perhaps be implemented soonersome people might say that it is second bestthe Committee recommended that the Sessional Order on access should continue in a modified and updated form until new legislation comes into force, which is a point the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and others have raised in the course of this debate. The Committee left out references to Westminster Hall, but we included not only the Palace itself, but the whole parliamentary estate.
	I hope that I have answered most of the concerns. If the point raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has not been fully dealt with, on hearing from him, I will seek to provide him with further information. I commend the report to the House and hope that the legislation, which we called for and which the Government have promised, will be introduced at an early date for Parliament's consideration.

Andrew Miller: On a point of orderI apologise to hon. Members who want to continue the debate, which is on an important subjectearlier today, an important exchange occurred between my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) and the Leader of the House on resources for Members of Parliament in connection with IT provision for remote users. That problem is being made worse by the amount of spam that we receive. I seek your assistance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because one particular company, Argos, is bombarding us with commercial material in a perfectly legitimate attempt to sell things, but it has not responded to requests to remove Parliament from its database, which causes the problem raised by my hon. Friend. Will you bring that matter to the attention of the relevant authorities and see what can be done not only to stop that nonsense, but to release resources that would help us to serve our constituents?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot make a ruling on that matter from the Chair, but the hon. Gentleman's points are on the record and will be noted by the appropriate department of the House.

Andrew MacKinlay: I regret the fact that the Order Paper invites us to deal with all the changes to the Sessional Orders in one vote rather than deal with them separately. I have listened to the important points about Parliament square with considerable interest, and my view has moved backwards and forwards as the debate has gone on.
	I urge hon. Members to join me in the Lobby tonight to resist the changes, because the overriding point is the removal of the Sessional Orders relating to witnesses, which have been around since the 1700s and have their genesis in the Bill of Rights. What fools we would be if, late one Wednesday evening, we swept away something that is essential to our parliamentary democracy. We are being invited to do that tonight, and it is foolhardy in the extreme.

Phil Woolas: I respect the strength with which my hon. Friend speaks, but I refer him to evidence 4 in the Procedure Committee report, which gives the reason why those Sessional Orders are obsoletenamely, the definition of parliamentary contempt in Erskine May. I suggest to my hon. Friend that the protection that he seeks exists elsewhere.

Andrew MacKinlay: Even if I am wrongI do not think soit is incumbent on those seeking a change to advance an alternative, which they have failed to do, to ensure that evidence given to Parliament is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and that people do not interfere with witnesses. We should not support any change until we know the alternative.

John Redwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and admire his stance. The Deputy Leader of the House's response that the protection exists elsewhere is not sufficient, and surely that protection should be strengthened rather than weakened. There would be no harm in reasserting that protection at the beginning of every Session, because a civil servant coming before this House needs reassurance that their career will not be wrecked if they speak the truth.

Andrew MacKinlay: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The great problem is not that the Sessional Orders are irrelevant and out of date, but that there has been a lack of vigour and will on the part of Parliament to ensure that people coming before a Committee are clearly cautioned beforehand that they are expected to be candid with Parliament.

Tony McWalter: My hon. Friend's integrity, determination and courage are on the record, but surely he understands that to pretend that the House has the capacity to proceed with severity against those who infringe our Sessional Orders is a major mistake. We need to do what he wants us to do properly, not to pretend that some 1839 law has sorted everything out for us.

Andrew MacKinlay: I disagree. The fact is that we have the power; what is needed is enforcement. Most legislatures have such powers and enforce them. On this occasion, I commend the Congress of the United States, which requires those giving evidence to take the oath. Parliament would be sensible to follow suit. We all know that taking the oath before entering the witness box cautions us about the gravity of the evidence that we are about to give. It would help if we did the same in Parliamentit is provided for in Standing Orders.
	My point is that we do not caution anyone and it has become the custom or culture for someone appearing before a Select Committee to regard it as legitimate sport to give as little away as possible. Doing so is not seen as being irregular, nor does it attract any criticism of any substance when one is found out. Severe penalties ought to be enforced if a person perjures himself before a parliamentary Committee.

Jeremy Corbyn: I understand my hon. Friend's comments about the gravity of giving evidence to Select Committees, but I was a member of a Select Committee that attempted to interview the Maxwell brothers about missing pension funds: they said that they were not prepared to answer any questions and prayed in aid the right of silence, which is inherent in law in this country. What would he do about such a case?

Andrew MacKinlay: In my view, there should have been sanctions for declining to respond to Parliament. About a year ago, I was criticised for saying,
	This is the high court of Parliament,
	but that is precisely what it is, and we should not forget that.
	It has been suggested that the Sessional Orders that the Speaker reads out at every state opening of Parliament are long. They are not. I am particularly interested in the one that states:
	if it shall appear that any person has been tampering with any witness, in respect of his evidence to be given to this House, or any Committee thereof, or directly or indirectly has endeavoured to deter or hinder any person from appearing or giving evidence, the same is declared to be a high crime and misdemeanour; and this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender.
	We have to do that if we are to be taken seriously as a Parliament.
	Let me draw on personal experience of what I regard as attempts to interfere with Select Committees. When I was a member of a Select Committee in a past Parliament, the permanent secretary of a Government Department intimated to the Committee that the witness we wanteda junior civil servant, or junior to him at leastwas sick. I found it somewhat surprising to hear that on the Monday because I had seen the man in question on Saturday partying. After I had let that be known, that civil servant, to his eternal credit, stormed up to the permanent secretary and said, What is this you're saying about me? I insist that I appear. He did so and acquitted himself well, and two weeks later got substantial promotion.
	That is an example of deliberate interference by a senior civil servant to frustrate the attempts of a Select Committee to get a witness to appear. To complete the picture, let me tell the House that a senior Minister phoned me at midnight one Sunday to ask, What the hell were you doing?he used those words, or perhaps stronger ones. He concluded by saying, This conversation never took place. Well, it did, and the whole affair is recorded in my diary. The fact is that attempts have been made to interfere with Select Committees and we need to stamp on them to ensure that they are never repeated.
	These Sessional Orders are very important because they protect those people in the public or the private sector who recognise their public responsibilities and want to be candid to Parliament but are being leaned on by employers, managers or some other vested group. I should have liked the Committee to say that before a witness appears before a Select Committee, its Chairman should draw his or her attention, probably when they receive the invitation to appear, to the fact that they are obliged to be completely candid and to give full disclosure, and help him or her by saying that if anybody should interfere with that it will be taken very seriously by Parliament. We do not do thatwhy not?

Nicholas Winterton: I can tell the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) that the Liaison Committee is considering that matter. If the hon. Gentleman would like the Procedure Committee to be involved, he might care to write to me, and I will ensure that we, too, consider it.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I do not want to delay the House for much longer because I should like to hear from the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, whom I hold in the highest regard. However, if what the hon. Gentleman says is correct, why are we making this change? It is foolish and should be rejected. The Leader of the House mentioned his submission on the Osmotherly rules. We know that no Governmentnot only Labour Governments, but Tory Governments hithertolike civil servants to appear before Select Committees, so they pray in aid the Osmotherly rules, which, to his credit, the Clerk of the House of Commons, in his memorandum to the Hutton inquiry, said are not agreed or subscribed to by Parliament. That is on the public record, and rightly so.
	The Osmotherly rules are conjured up by the Executive of the day to protect and promote their selfish interests. It is time that we asserted ourselves to say that we will have nothing to do with that, and that we will introduce a discipline whereby people who appear before Select Committees are protected, but expected to give full disclosure and candour. That is why right hon. and hon. Members, including those who are in the Tea Room, should join me in the Lobby later this evening to sink this stupid proposal.

George Young: I am grateful for the trailer given by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). Whether he spoke loudly enough for his voice to carry to the Tea Room remains to be seen. I want to make three points, the first of which is a direct response to the hon. Member for Thurrock.
	The hon. Gentleman may know that relatively recently the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs reported to the Committee on Standards and Privileges a potential case of breach of privilege in which a witness who had given evidence felt that she had been disadvantaged by having been threatened with removal. When we investigated the matter, we found that there had indeed been contempt. The Government are reviewing the rules following our discovery that the civil service is not well informed about Select Committees, privilege and the risk of contempt. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and I, together with other members of the Liaison Committee, are providing input to clarify the rights and privileges of Select Committees and the risks that are run if there is any contempt or tampering with witnesses.
	My second point relates to the Sessional Orders. The Procedure Committee recommended the replacement of obsolete Sessional Orders and resolutions with a statement of the duties and responsibilities of Members, with the details being left to the discretion of the Speaker. In their response, the Government accepted that recommendation and suggested that the Committee on Standards and Privileges might wish to express a view on a form of words. My Committee was sympathetic to the idea of making a contribution, so with Mr. Speaker's approval we offered him some thoughts reflecting the substance of the Procedure Committee's vision, which, when he draws up the statement that he will make to the House at the start of the Sessionif the motion is agreedhe may wish to bear in mind.
	My third point concerns Parliament square, which is an issue that I have pursued in business questions and in Westminster Hall. I was pleased to hear what the Leader of the House said when he introduced the debate. However, we have waited two days short of a year for the Government to come up with that response, and we still do not know when the legislation that he mentioned will be introduced or enacted.
	In the meantime, the problem will continue. I was slightly dispirited by the remarks of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who appeared to advocate a slow process. I have no objection to draft legislation and consulting the House, but I hope that there will be no further delay. The problem has existed for three years. The Procedure Committee has made inquiries and reported and the Government have consulted extensively within government for a year. I hope that there will be no undue delay in making progress.
	I have always advocated a balanced solution that respects the rights of the individual to protest, those of visitors to the centre of our great capital to appreciate and enjoy one of the most historic sites in the world and those of people who work nearby, not least the policemen on duty at the gates, to work without constant high volume noise. The solution should also respect the rights of those who work in or visit the Palace not to have our security compromised by providing cover at the entrance to New Palace Yard. My strong view is that we have not got the balance right.

Gerald Howarth: I agree with my right hon. Friend. Does he agree that, if workers in any other place in the country were subjected to the same noise and interference as those whose job it is to protect us suffer from the cacophony on the other side of road, all the health and safety legislation in the land would be brought to bear on them? The police officers have to put up with an intolerable burden.

George Young: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which leads to my next comment. We are not considering deprivation of a long established right or a threat to freedom of expression. We are trying to close a loophole in the law to get back to where we believed we were three or four years ago. Brian Haw has discovered the loophole and, well advised by Messrs Bindmans, exploited it. If we were starting from scratch, would we introduce a law to ban such activity from every pavement in London but specifically allow it outside the entrance to the House of Commons? We would not, but the law currently provides for that and the House would be well advised to move to a more defensible position that removed the loophole.

John McDonnell: Health and safety has been mentioned. Has the Health and Safety Executive made a health and safety assessment? It has not been reported to any Committee. No offence has been alleged under health and safety legislation.

George Young: I am sure that the Health and Safety Executive will note the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but if he talks informally to the policemen he will find that it is doing no good to the health of those who are confronted by that noise some 20 ft away at high volume, hour after hour. I hope that he does not try to defend what the policemen at the gates have to tolerate.
	Liberty said:
	If this legislation is passed, it could potentially endanger the rights of every single person in this country.
	That is absurd. I hope that hon. Members will put the matter in some sort of perspective. We have well preserved, well used rights of protest in this country, but the activity in Parliament square goes beyond what is appropriate or reasonable in a mature democracy. One of the rights of a mature democracy is setting some acceptable parameters for freedom of expression. In my judgment, they are being exceeded.

Lembit �pik: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

George Young: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have debated the matter exhaustively in the media for most of the past 24 hours.

Lembit �pik: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. Does he recall that we did one of those interviews in exactly the spot that he describes, across the road from Mr. Haw's demonstration? We could do that and be heard. He says that he is looking for a balance, but the status quo is the balance because we are considering non-violent, legal direct action that does not obstruct us in our activities. To go further would take away rights.

George Young: I do not accept that the volume of noise is reasonable. I do not accept that we were interviewed in good conditions. The reporter was happy to conduct the interview there because the loudhailer noise made the point and gave the listener to the programme some idea of what was happening, but the conditions were not ideal.
	We can all distinguish between a one-off, well-targeted demonstration for a day and a permanent encampment with constant high volume slogans and abuse.
	Mr. Haw is entitled to protest in the same way as anyone else, and in a free country there are many opportunities to do so, but as I understand it there is nothing to stop others doing exactly what Mr. Haw is doing all the way round Parliament square. That is not something that I would welcome.
	Finally, I should like to make an environmental point. We are discussing one of the most important historic sites in the world. We have here the Houses of Parliament, Westminster abbey, Whitehall, the Churchill statue and the Guildhall, but the eye and ear are drawn towards the unsightly cacophony in the middle. We simply have not got the balance right. No other democracy in the world would tolerate what is happening in Parliament square, with a shanty town right opposite Parliament. There is no history of protest at this location; it is not like Hyde Park corner. There is a loophole in the law, and an abuse that has been going on for far too long. I support the Government in their attempts to put that right.

Jeremy Corbyn: The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) wants to create an antiseptic tourist attraction round here that has nothing to do with democracy or participation, and the suggestion that Brian Haw's presence outside is somehow damaging to the buildings is pushing it a bit. Brian Haw is there because he believes in something. Surely, in a democracy, we should welcome people who believe in something and who are prepared to make that statement.
	This debate on Sessional Orders is very interesting and important. I gave evidence to the Committee on this matter, and I hope that the Ministers will think very carefully about what they are proposing here. We seem to be inviting the police to take certain actions concerning the presence of people in Parliament square, without being specific about the powers under which they would do so, on the basis that legislation on the issue will be proposed at some point in the future. That sets a dangerous precedent. If we accept it, the police will act in a certain way, having been given a kind of nod from Parliament as to how we now believe that Sessional Orders should operate, and, at some point in the indeterminate future, legislation that we shall have a chance to debate will appear. Unless something dramatic happens during the Minister's wind-up speechwhich would surprise meI shall vote against these proposals because I think that that is the right thing to do.
	We have a duty to protect the right of free speech around Parliament just as much as have a duty to protect the right of Members to get to Parliamentthat was the basis of some of the Sessional Ordersand we must ensure that that remains the case. During the Select Committee hearing, there seemed to be quite a lot of confusion about the rights of access to Parliament. It is perfectly clear that MPs must have the right to get to Parliament, otherwise a tyrannical situation could arise in which they were prevented from getting here and would therefore be unable to vote, resulting in legislation being carried or not, as the case may be. It is essential that they have that democratic right, because they are here to represent the people. However, the suggestion that a demonstration in the centre of Parliament square somehow impedes Members getting to the House is unbelievably absurd. Nobody would walk down Whitehall, cross two roads to get to the centre of the square, then cross two more to get into the building. That is absurd; they simply would not do it.

Tony McWalter: Was it not the case that, during the hunting demonstration, those of us coming to Parliament by car were prevented from getting here?

Jeremy Corbyn: That is so. That demonstration was organised with the co-operation and consent of the Metropolitan police, and had nothing whatever to do with Brian Haw and his demonstration in the middle of Parliament square. Indeed, I received a copy of a letter sent to Brian Haw by the Metropolitan police suggesting that he might like to be somewhere else that day, because they thought that his presence might not be compatible with the aims of the hunting lobby. I do not know what Brian did, but I suspect that he probably stayed there.

John Bercow: There is, of course, a distinction between liberty and licence. The hon. Gentleman champions Mr. Haw's right to articulate his views, but does he not accept that the right to free speech has to be exercised within a context? There must be some limitation and control because it is not a self-regarding act. This is an act that has an effectmany of us would argue that it is an unacceptable and damaging effecton the rights of others. If the hon. Gentleman accepts that there has to be some limit, in terms of time and/or intensity of expression, where would he place that limit?

Jeremy Corbyn: I am deeply disappointed with that intervention. I was hoping that the statements in the weekend press about the hon. Gentleman's rapid move to the leftpassing new Labour on the wayhad real substance. Indeed, I was in his constituency on Sunday evening discussing just that matter with some of his constituents, and they were very interested.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he has given me a welcome opportunity to exercise, in order, my right to free speech. I have always been a Tory, I am a Tory and I have to tell him and his relatives who live in my constituency that I will die a Tory.

Jeremy Corbyn: If I had not given way so soon, I could have explained to the hon. Gentleman that the conclusion of our lengthy conversation was that he was a Tory, is a Tory and will remain a Tory. In those circumstances, grateful as they are for his work as their Member, they will never be able to vote for him. I am sure he understands the democratic context in which those remarks were made.
	To return to the issue of the right of free speech outside the House, Brian Haw's presence has never prevented anybody else from demonstrating or expressing a point of view. He has resided there because he believes passionately that this country's policy towards Iraq is wrong and that we should not be associated with the war. He has established a presence there and become a focal point. I think that what upsets Members who supported the war, who walk, drive or cycle to Westminster, is being reminded of that by his presence. They do not like it and feel slightly irritated by it.
	I was irritated at times by the presence of the hunting lobby in the centre of Parliament square, but, as those Members who have read the Select Committee report will know, evidence was given to that Committee by the hon. Members for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) and for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and by me. It was a rare afternoon out when the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Lady and I all agreed on the need to protect the right to demonstrate. We made that point very clearly.
	I want to make two quick points. First, there is no universal right of assembly, march or demonstration, although perhaps there should be. That was removed by the Public Order Act 1986, which was passed by Parliament and which requires police permission to have a demonstration, unless the police allow an unusual demonstration to take place. The fact that someone says that Brian Haw has outlived his usefulness proves just how useful and important he is. He should be congratulated on that.
	I was thinking about long-term demonstrations that I have visited at different times and at various places in this country and around the world. The presence of one person making a point, taking sanctuary or making a public protest is very powerful. Sun Yat-sen occupied a place in London and became a figure of Chinese nationalism at the start of the 20th century, while the presence of Aboriginal land rights demonstrators outside the Australian Parliament has continued for years. There is a peace camp outside the White House, which has gone on for years. There was a demonstration for a long time1,000 days, indeedoutside the United States embassy to bring US troops out of Vietnam. Those who organised it said, We will stay here until the troops go.
	I took part in a vigil that lasted many years outside South Africa house. I was there at the beginning. Indeed, along with my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), I was arrested and told that I was obstructing the pavement. Then the charge was changed to acting in a way that was deliberately offensive to a foreign embassy based in London. As it was the apartheid regime's foreign embassy, I could do nothing but plead guilty with honour to that charge. The charge was thrown out, and the demonstration therefore won the right to be outside South Africa house and it stayed there until the apartheid regime was ended. So, there are plenty of examples.
	Did not the women who stayed on Greenham Common for all those years play a major part in promoting the cause of nuclear disarmament, in exactly the same way as those demonstrating currently at Menwith Hill? We owe our rights to those who have been prepared to stand up and express them.

Lembit �pik: On exactly that point, is it not interesting that those who are in defence of Brian Haw consider his motivations for the demonstration, while those who oppose the likes of him simply consider the inconvenience caused to themselves by the demonstration? Does not that prove that the essence of such a demonstration is to try to get people who consider it an inconvenience to listen to the fundamental reason why such a person has inconvenienced himself by virtually living outside the Palace of Westminster?

Jeremy Corbyn: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. I happen to agree with what Brian Haw says, but if others were there, such as the pig farmers, I would not have to agree with them. I would respect their right to be there and to express their point of view

Alex Salmond: Or, for that matter, the demonstration for five years outside the Scottish Office, which Conservative Secretaries of State for Scotland wished to have removed, as we now know, but could find nothing in the law of Scotland to support the removal. That makes it all the more disappointing that Labour Members apparently want to go ahead with this mumbo-jumbo.

Jeremy Corbyn: I did not get involved in the demonstration outside the Scottish Office, but it had an important effect, as demonstrations do. Members who are prepared to pass this motion should think for a moment about where our democratic rights came from. Were they handed down, or were they gained because people were prepared to demonstrate and demand a freely elected Parliament? Did not the Chartists make a great contribution to the history of this country from which we draw many of our rights? We should be very careful about taking away the rights of others on fairly spurious grounds, as we are doing at present. It becomes the start of a slippery slope.
	Demonstrations are inconvenient and a nuisance, and different points of view are sometimes not believed to be acceptable. But if we want to live in a free and democratic society, we must protect the right of those who are prepared to stand up and speak for a cause, outside this place, and remind us day in, day out that the decisions that we take have effects elsewhere, all the way over in Iraq or wherever. I ask Members tonight to think of our democratic values and not to support the proposals.

John Redwood: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) made an extremely powerful case for the protection of witnesses. Witnesses are not well enough protected, and it would send the wrong signal to strike that out of the opening remarks of the Session. Instead the Government should consider ways of strengthening the position of witnesses, especially vulnerable witnesses such as civil servants, whose testimony is often crucial. Until that strengthening has occurred, I hope that we will keep in place the stern warning from Mr. Speaker at the beginning of the Session that witnesses will get, and deserve, the protection of the House. We then need to think about how we can do that.
	The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) was right to say that there are occasions when right hon. and hon. Members have their passage to the House delayed. It would be good if the whole House, through the Speaker, said to the police at the beginning of each Session that we expect themour friends on our sideto make sure that all Members in possession of their passes are given quick and free passage, whatever may be going on outside. There have been occasions of state visits that have led to delays and impediments to Members getting through, and policed demonstrations when Members have been delayed or detained and not able to get through. I am sure that the police would want to help us, and it would be good if the whole House united to say that Members in possession of their passes, or well-known Members whom the police can identify, should be let through as a matter of urgency and courtesy. Members have sometimes been delayed in getting into the House to debate and vote on the very issues about which the demonstrators are complaining. Surely all demonstrators in a free and democratic society would wish to see elected Members having the opportunity to be in the House when such important matters are being discussed
	My third point relates to the proposed change of words with the suggestion that a form of words connected with the duties and responsibilities of Members should be used instead at the beginning of the Session. It is difficult for us to make a judgment tonight, as we are not in possession of whatever that form of words might be. I suspect that if we asked all Members to jot down on a piece of paper how they would define duties and responsibilities we would see variations and nuances on a large scale, although we trust that there would be some family resemblance. It would, I think, prove contentious and difficult. It would be odd of us to sweep away existing words before knowing that we had a much better form of words in the spirit of modernisation that the Government and the Committee suggest. The devil could well be in the detail, and I am reluctant to sign up until I have seen a difficult task carried out successfully.
	Having observed the passions and disagreements that have arisen today over demonstrations, let me suggest that it is a question of balance. Some of us are on the side of free demonstrations, while others are more interested in having a beautiful square with law and order. Everyone is somewhere on the spectrum. I think that the issue will be resolved by Government proposals on legislation, and I do not think Members should be swayed by proposals on Sessional Orders tonight. There should be plenty of time for debate when legislation is before us. As the Government have made clear, this issue cannot be resolved without primary legislation. That, surely, is the time for a strong and passionate debateagain, about wording, so that we can decide whether the balance has been struck in the right way.
	I hope that Members will bear that in mind when deciding whether to accept this rather rushed change, in the absence of all the improvements and modernisations that we have been promised.

Alex Salmond: I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of occasions on which I have agreed with the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), but this just might be one of them. How on earth are Members to judge whether this new form of words, this mission statement from the code of conduct, this splendid encapsulation of the duties and responsibilities of a Member of Parliament, is better than the Sessional Orders, without seeing the form of words with which we are being invited to replace them? Given the complaint from various Committee Chairmen that this has taken too long, we might have expected to see the alternative formulation by now.
	I have no doubt that others involved in this will come up with some splendid formulae, but I must say I have always thought that the Good News Bible does not quite capture the majesty of the King James version.

Desmond Swayne: Perhaps we might give each other a sign of peace.

Alex Salmond: I join the Conservative ranks, in a constitutional sense, just in the context of this particular aspect, and to sound some warnings.
	With due deference to the distinguished Chairman of the Procedure Committee, let me say that the fact that something has not been used for a while does not always mean that it is not necessary. We have not seen a motion for impeachment in the House since 1848, but in the current circumstancesagainst the current Prime Ministerit is very important that it remains available to Members of Parliament. The fact that some of the protections conferred by the Sessional Orders have not been used for a while does not mean that they are not important.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the hon. Gentleman not take seriously the advice of the Clerk of the House, who is a servant not of Government, not of Opposition, but of the House? His recommendation was very much along the lines of the recommendations in the report.

Alex Salmond: I am not concerned about whether the Chairman of the Procedure Committee took seriously the recommendations of the Clerk of the House; I am concerned about the fact thatnot showing his usual robust independencehe did not perceive the flaws and difficulties with which such advice presents us this evening. Under the guise of convenience, modernisation and wrapping things up, we see the mishmash of nonsense that we are being invited to support when no one can even explain the reasons for the change in the wording of the sessional order.
	I believe, and I think other Members agree, that the new phrase
	to hinder Members by any means
	might refer to noise pollution. We are assured that that preoccupied the Committee and preoccupies certain Members, but I do not think it is worth the candle if it means restricting the right and freedom to demonstrate that some Members have mentioned. They are not thinking of themselves, of course; they are thinking of the poor policemen and members of staff.
	The reality, as anybody who has attended business questions knows, is that those Members do not like the message coming through the loudhailers. It is not the loudhailers that they object to, but the occasional pricks to their bloated consciences. We should see through this cant and humbug and question why on earth we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke, to support formulations that nobody can explain, and to reject the Sessional Orders when we do not even have their replacement before us this evening.
	I became concerned when I read the Procedure Committee's report. Despite my enormous admiration for the Committee Chairman, I was aghast to read the exchange between him and the Serjeant at Arms concerning the difficulties that the police experienced during a children's demonstration in forcibly removing them when they lay down in front of the House of Commons. Rather than understanding that there might be some difficulties and sensitivities in terms of how the police carry out such dutiesjust as might occur in dealing with a disabled demonstrationthe Chairman said in response the Serjeant at Arms that there was Almost anarchy! I suppose that we should be surprised that he thought it almost anarchy. Usually, in his ebullience, he would have thought it true anarchy. Many of us, regardless of the proclivity of these children to take an unauthorised day off school, were actually rather glad to discover that so many members of the younger generation were thinking about something more than what was going to happen in that evening's soap, and that they wanted to come to this place to demonstrate about an issue that they thought particularly important.
	Some people address these issues as if there is something absolutely special about Members of Parliament. Well, there are two things that are special, the first of which is the right of privilege: the fundamental right of Members to say what they like without the encumbrance of any threat of action against them. Secondly, there is a fundamental right of access, as all who have spoken in this debate agree. Over and above that, there is no need for special rights, or for protection for Members against noise pollution entering their place of work. On the contrary, there should be additional rights to demonstrate around Parliament, not less. We should want people to demonstrate around here; the time to worry is when nobody can be bothered to do so.
	Mr. Haw, who has spent three years outside this place, seems to preoccupy many Members. Indeed, the preoccupation is such that the Committee said:
	The Government should introduce appropriate legislation to prohibit long-term demonstrations.
	Unusually, a Member with the sanity and perception of the Committee Chairman is telling us that it is only long-term demonstrations that the Committee objects to, and that the occasional short-term demonstration will be okay. He is worried about the crowding out by Mr. Haw of other demonstrations. He is worried about the intimidation of thousands of huntsmen and women by this one man's demonstration, which apparently occupies too much space in Parliament square. That such a distinguished and insightful Member can come before us with such nonsense suggests that he has been over-influenced by some of our more sensitive souls. They cannot see beyond their own minor inconvenience to detecting something in the Sessional Ordersabout the right to demonstratethat might be important in terms of protecting our rights and the people's rights.
	So I shall join the rebellious Labour Back Benchers and others who are concerned about the suborning of witnesses, although I suspect that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) could have given us more recent examples of Committees being influenced. We look forward to his memoirs and to accounts of more recent Committees in which he has participated, to see whether such things do in fact happen. I shall join that rebellion and share the concern of those who want to maintain freedom of speech, and I shall insistif I canthat we see what we are meant to be voting for before we fling out the Sessional Orders. They may be archaic and arcane. They may not be noticed by many hon. Members at the start of each Session, but I suspect that they contain some things of greater importance than the grumblings of a few Conservative MPs and the inability of Government Front Benchers to detect anything of historic significance in them.
	In particular, I note that the Leader of the House is a man who specialised in demonstrations in the early stages of his career and I think that he was absolutely right to campaign on those issues. Yet he now comes before us to support proposals whose purpose is, inter alia, to obstruct and restrict a gentleman who has done nobody any harm and is demonstrating for a cause that is fundamentally good.

Lembit �pik: I rise to support the views expressed by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and others because I believe that we really have a personal responsibility to defend the rights of those who have a quieter voice than ourselves.
	As I have said before, we are greatly privileged to be able to express our views directly in the House to decision makers and those who run the country, and at the same time to have them expressed occasionally through the media, whether it be on television, radio or in newspapers. By comparison, our man outside, Brian Haw, has proved that people have to work pretty damn hard to get heard and have a voice by proxy in this place. To his great credit, we have had what amounts to a three-hour debate prompted in large part by his three-and-a-half year sacrifice and his willingness to inconvenience himself by virtually living outside the Palace of Westminster in the daytime.
	Other hon. Members have spoken about balancing the right to demonstrate with other concerns. I would suggest that we have the balance about right in this country. I do not need to repeat what others have saidthat Brian Haw presents no danger to us; that he has not restricted our ability to come in and out of the premises. He is clearly a non-violent demonstrator, and as we know, he does not even break the law. As far as I am concerned, introducing legislation to outlaw such behaviour is in itself a crime.
	I also cannot help wondering whether, if the message were different, we would be having this debate. If Brian Haw stood with his megaphone on Wednesdays as the Prime Minister left Downing street and shouted, Up with the Prime Minister; we want four more years! or shouted out to the Ministers before us today, Long live the hon. Member for Don Valley! or Good luck to the hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth. We love you!, would we be debating this gentleman as a dangerous scourge on society?

Nicholas Winterton: Yes.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman merely expresses his own vain envy because I mentioned Ministers rather than himself, but I am sure that with a couple of words across the road, Brian Haw would give the thumbs up to him as well. I suggest that it is, at least in part, the message that causes us to have the current debate.
	Prohibiting long-term demonstrations itself brings about all sorts of difficulties. How might such legislation be implemented? The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) suggested that the problem with having Brian Haw there all the time is that there could be a long list of other people who would like to demonstrate there, too. I assume therefore that he would have no problem if Brian Haw decided to do a hot megaphonein other words, operated a rota with two or three other people. There would always be demonstration going on, but not on the same matter.
	Perhaps we could have a demonstration against the war in Iraq on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays; we could have another gentleman opposing the war in Afghanistan on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays; and on Sundays we could have someone who generally objected to the Government's foreign policies such as the sale of arms to the very people we are now having to attack. There would be three demonstrations in a week rather than one long-term demonstration. That is the sort of preposterous position we get into once we accept that people are allowed to demonstrate without restriction, but not in one continuous blast.
	I accept that people are uncomfortable or inconvenienced by what Mr. Haw and other people like him do, but that is not a good enough reason to prevent them from having the opportunity to demonstrate if they want to. It strikes me as very telling that people who support such demonstrations tend to consider the motivations of those who demonstrate, while those who would curtail the demonstrations tend to consider the inconvenience to themselves. The irony is that demonstrations become effective only when some inconvenience is caused.
	That is the heart of the matter, and I support those who have argued so eloquently about the importance of giving a voice to people who are willing to inconvenience themselves to raise a concern. In this case, we are talking about Brian Haw, but the principle applies to the nation.
	Mr. Mega[Interruption.] I was going to say Mr. Megaphone, because it seems that I am fixated with that word. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was going to conclude by saying that megaphone diplomacy is alive and well in Parliament square. Its guardian is a man called Brian Haw. We are guardians of democracy and have the right and responsibility to look after his interests. It is an old truism to say, for reasons that we have heard many times before, that although some of us may abhor what Brian Haw says, if we are serious about democracy we are duty bound to defend to the end his right to say it.

Eric Forth: I want to mention a couple of things that have not been talked about much so far. First, I draw the House's attention to paragraph 6 of the report, which gives the lie to a lot of what has been said about what this is about. It states that
	in the absence of an Order of Business for the first day of a Session, the Orders and Resolutions are proposed to the House without notice and have to be read out in full: they have on occasion given rise to debate and even (in 1984) a division.
	That shows that the report is about cleaning up, controlling and disciplining what happens in this House, in case it should inconvenience the Government or hon. Members at large. It seems that we must never have surprises in this House any more, or anything that is unpredictable or that might upset the Government. I am afraid that we are seeing that sort of thing repeatedly these days.
	I should have thought that hon. Members would welcome the spontaneity that could arise from some of our rather quaint traditions. We should not want everything to be so ordered, arranged and controlled that we know exactly what is going to happen, but we are moving in that direction. I am sad to say that the report takes that process a step further.
	Paragraph 10 of the report contains what I consider to be the following impertinence. It states that
	the Sessional Orders and Resolutions . . . should be replaced by a statement of the duties and responsibilities of Members, possibly the seven principles of public life as set out in the Code of Conduct.
	That is nonsense: Members of Parliament define their responsibilities and account to their voters for them. We do not want to start getting involved in job descriptions and procedure manuals that tell us how to do our job, but it appears that that is what underlies that supposedly innocent proposal involving a
	statement of the duties and responsibilities of Members.
	I know that a lot of hon. Members regard themselves effectively as social workers, and not even very glorified ones, but a few of us still cling to the view that it is the variation in the attitude that they take to their responsibilitiesand their definition of those responsibilitiesthat is the essence of what it means to be a Member of Parliament. If we start to move away from that, we shall diminish even further the already diminished role that we have created for ourselves.
	We are making rather heavy weather of this very important issue involving demonstrations and the balance between freedom and discipline. Some time ago, I suggested to the Leader of the House that we institute a very simple rule stipulating that Parliament square be cleared between sunset and sunrise every day. That would be one way of dealing with the problem of whether a demonstration is continuous, for example.
	My other suggestion would be to ban voice amplification. People would be perfectly free to forgather and use their voices in an acceptable way, but they would not be allowed to set up the permanent encampments that have arisen. That would be a reasonable balance between maintaining people's freedom to be in Parliament square opposite the House of Commons and express a point of view, either individually or collectively, and the need to maintain some sort of discipline.

Alex Salmond: The right hon. Gentleman clings to a view, which I support, of his rights as a Member of Parliament, so why cannot he cling to the idea that there are rights for people who want to demonstrate to Members of Parliament?

Eric Forth: I have no desire to stop people demonstrating. They could gather freely in Parliament square, as long as they did not permanently camp there, because if a large enough number of them did so, it might prevent others from demonstrating. There should be some equity. The noise thing is relevant, too. There are probably some fairly simple and elegant solutions to the problem, and I hope that we can find them, rather than being too heavy-handed.

Julian Lewis: I have waited seven long years to find something in common with the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn). My wait has been fulfilled today, because like him, I have been arrested for demonstrating in public. I have even been locked up in a cell for demonstrating in public, and one of the reasons for that was that I made too much amplified noise in public.

John Bercow: Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether he informed the selection committee of the New Forest, East Conservative association of that important fact before he was selected?

Julian Lewis: I am sure that had I done so, the good burghers of New Forest, East would have made a far wiser selection than, in the event, they did.
	In May 1982, there was a huge demonstration going up Whitehall, led by Arthur Scargill and Tony Benn, against the taskforce that was deploying to fight in the Falklands war, so I and a number of friends and colleagues ambushedas it werethe demonstration from the rooftops, playing at excessively loud volume Her Majesty's national anthem. That led the police to arrest me and others on the ground that by playing the national anthem we might so upset the serried ranks of Trotskyites, communists and other agitators marching in the main demonstration as to cause a breach of the peace.

Jeremy Corbyn: I have to inform the hon. Gentleman that he did not upset us at all. We quite enjoyed it and thought it was a bit of fun. Not one person on the demonstration requested that he or anybody else be arrested for mounting any form of counter-demonstration. There was a spirit of democracy about the event.

Julian Lewis: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman made that intervention, as I should now like to tell him what happened next.
	People felt that the police had been a tad heavy-handed, so on future demonstrations, in October 1983 and June 1984, we mounted similar counter-demonstrations, by arrangement with the police. The councilI think it was Westminstersent along an officer with a decibel meter, and whatever may or may not have happened in 1982, there were plenty of protests from the demonstrators to that environmental officer. He kept telling us, If you don't turn it down, we'll confiscate your equipment. In those days, it was possible to hold a major demonstration with a minor counter-demonstration and to have a certain balance of forces so that both sides could put their point across.

Alex Salmond: To boil it down to its essence, the hon. Gentleman is saying that 20 years ago he was arrested for noise disturbance and now he wants to arrest everybody else who

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Unusually, I think I need say no more.

Julian Lewis: Would that life were as simple as the hon. Gentleman suggests. What I am actually saying is that somewhere between then and now there has been a change in the law. There has been a change in the rules and it looks as though it must have been brought in under the last Conservative Government in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, because according to a letter sent to me by Westminster council,
	section 79(1)(ga) defines noise that is prejudicial to health or a nuisance and is emitted or caused by a vehicle, machinery or equipment in a street, as a statutory nuisance. However, section 79(6A) provides that section 79(1)(ga) does not apply to noise made by a political demonstration or a demonstration supporting or opposing a cause or a campaign.
	The fact is, we have heard a lot of humbug talked about freedom of speech. We have freedom of speech in this Chamber; we each put forward our differing views. When we have had our say, we let the other person have his. We sit down, we shut up and we listen. We do not go on shouting in the face of the other person whether he wants to listen or not. We obey the rules. That is not happening in Parliament square.
	I have taken the trouble to go across and have extensive conversations with Brian Haw and I take much very much to heart the comments of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who tried to suggest that those of us who oppose the racket that Brian is making do so because we hate his message. I ask the hon. Gentleman and others to accept my sincerity when I say that I would take the same approach to anyone who demonstrated in the same way for a cause in which I passionately believed and who went on making a racket that was designed not to address the people who had come to hear the message but to penetrate the building of people who were trying to get on with their work, looking after the interests of their constituents.
	Perhaps some of those who speak so glibly about the noise have offices that are somewhat better insulated than mine, but I assure them that it is very difficult to do one's work when there is a constant racket and a barrage of noise the words of which cannot even be heard clearly. It is a row, and it is made not to get a message across or in the interests of free speech but to harass and annoy parliamentarians. That is the beginning and end of it. Nothing other than a change in the law will prevent this abuse from continuing.
	I am relatively agnostic on whether or Brian or anybody else ought to be able to demonstrate in Parliament square. I have spoken to him and I admire his commitment to his cause. I will make a point that no one else has made. I know that one of his motivations results from the fact that his father went into and liberated one of the Nazi concentration camps. With my family background, I have every reason to hold anyone motivated in that way in the highest regard.
	I do not think that Brian used to make all this noise in the earlier part of his campaign, and when he did not make the noise and just put his message across, I had very little, if anything, to say about what he was doing. However, I now think that he has taken freedom of speech into areas that become an abuse of free speech. There is no freedom to impinge on the freedom of other people. That is what he is doing.

Caroline Flint: We have had a very interesting debate, with 13 speeches from the Back Benches in addition to those from the Front-Bench Opposition spokespersons.
	As a Home Office Minister, I will concentrate on the demonstrations in Parliament square, and while there has been a great deal of discussion about one individual, the legislation that we will introduce is not just about that individual: it is about dealing with a number of issues relating to both long-term and short-term demonstrations in the area around Parliament. It is important to address such issues.
	The Mayor of London took part in the consultation and a summary of his response shows that he believes
	in an individual's right to protest but must be balanced with the security of protection from harassment and that protests outside Parliament are addressed. Londoners' safety could be seriously jeopardised by violent demonstrations around Parliament and Parliament Square. Current legislation provides a degree of safety for the Houses of Parliament, however recent demonstrations suggests they are insufficient.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and I worked for the Mayor when the Greater London council existed, and the Mayor makes an interesting point.
	I too have demonstrated, and perhaps like other Members, I remember the time when I could not cross Westminster bridge to demonstrate. There has been much discussion about the right to free speech and to demonstrate, but some of the contributions to the debate suggested that that right does not exist in this country. The right does exist in this country, and it does so to a much greater extent than in many other countries throughout the world, including Iraq under Saddam Hussein, whom Mr. Haw advocated that we should do nothing about. The matter is important, and as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said, we must examine the detail of the legislation when we introduce it.
	Let me touch on several points raised by hon. Members.

Alex Salmond: rose

Caroline Flint: We have heard a lot of contributions and I will not have time to deal with the points made by hon. Members if I give way.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington asked about consultation. Consultation has occurred on new police powers and we have seen the publication of the consultation paper, Modernising Police Powers to Meet Community Needs. The public consultation process lasted for 12 weeks and closed only recently.
	Like several hon. Members, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) suggested that the powers were being designed to deal with only one individual. I do not know whether this will reassure him, but I re-emphasise the fact that the plans that we intend to introduce will allow the police to place conditions on all short and long-term demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) on his work on the Procedure Committee and thank him for his support. He raised a point about the important question of passes. Police officers and staff of the House who ask to see people's passes do so because they are trying to protect us and our security. I am sometimes guilty of not wearing my pass, but I am glad to do so today. We must appreciate the situation and act responsibly.
	The Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), made an excellent speech. He has been accused of many things during the debate, such as preventing Parliament from scrutinising the Executive and doing away with traditions that should be part and parcel of Parliament in the future. He is the last person who could be accused of doing such things. He and his colleagues on the Procedure Committee have tried to make sensible suggestions about the way forward and have rightly taken heed of hon. Members' concerns. In preparation for our debate, I read the report of the Westminster Hall debateI did not attend itin which many hon. Members participated, including the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), to express people's worries about the way in which free speech can sometimes be abused. There must be a sense of order behind the way in which free speech may be expressed.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) raised several points about witnesses. I am assured by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House that his worries about witnesses are covered by other statutes. As the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire said, a debate is currently being held within the Liaison Committee on whether there is a clear way in which witnesses who are brought before Committees could be advised of their rights and responsibilities when giving evidence, which is a good idea.

Tony McWalter: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Caroline Flint: I have only a few minutes in which to speak, so I shall not give way to my hon. Friend on this occasion.
	The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire made a balanced contribution. The Government do not intend to ban demonstrations, so we are in accord with him on that point. We are saying that, given the times in which we live, we must consider hon. Members' access to Parliament and the protection of not only Members of Parliament and those who work here but other people who meet and gather in the square. When we introduce the legislation, we will have a full chance to debate how we may achieve that and deal with the obvious problems that exist while maintaining people's right to protest. It is absurd to suggest that the actions that we intend to take will deny people the right to express their views.

Paul Tyler: rose

Caroline Flint: I am sorry, but I will not give way.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) asked about police permission. Police permission must be given for marches under section 2 of the Public Order Act 1986. However, it is not necessary to obtain advance police permission for assemblies.
	The right hon. Member for Wokingham made a point about witness protection, but as I said, I am advised that that matter is covered elsewhere. He mentioned the important question of MPs' access to the House. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House mentioned the fact that one of our colleagues in the House was assaulted during a recent demonstration. She was simply making her way from her office in No. 1 Parliament Street to the House.
	The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) raised the statement of principles, which I am advised will be looked at by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, who chairs the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. Mr. Speaker will make a statement to the House, and it will be for the House to endorse it. I agree that we need to strike a balance when dealing with the many problems in Parliament square raised by hon. Members.
	The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) repeated a number of points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington and for Islington, North. He said that the message would be stopped, but as was rightly pointed out, one cannot hear or understand a message blared out by a loudhailer. People have the right to protest, and we could have a long debate about whether the protest outside has been particularly effective in changing policyI suggest that it has not. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I am afraid, accused the hon. Member for Macclesfield of helping the Executive to storm their way through the House without due process or scrutiny. I have already said that that is not the case. He also raised the issue of the statement, and I believe that I have already explained how the process will operate. He agreed with other hon. Members that we must do something about certain types of demonstration that have come to the fore in recent times.
	The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) suggested that there was a split in the New forest.

Julian Lewis: For the first time ever.

Caroline Flint: Surely not the last. The hon. Gentleman shared his interesting experiences of demonstrating
	It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker putforthwith the Question, pursuant to Order [2 November].

Question put:
	The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 75.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House takes note of the Third Report of the Procedure Committee, Session 200203, on Sessional Orders and Resolutions, HC 855, and the Government's Response thereto (published as the Committee's Third Special Report of the current Session, HC 613); approves the proposals set out in paragraphs 9, 10 and 25 of the Report for changes in the practice of the House at the beginning of each Session; and, as recommended in paragraph 9(b), makes the following provision:
	That all Members of this House who are returned for two or more places in any part of the United Kingdom should choose for which of the places they will serve, within one week after it appears that there is no question about their election for that place.

SHARPNESS DOCKS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Woolas.]

David Drew: I am delighted to have this opportunity to discuss Sharpness docks, and I am also delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins), on the Front Bench. I was slightly surprised when I learned that she was responding to this debate, but in the spirit of comradeship that we have in our party, and given that the subject is docks, I am sure that the Department for Transport is as relevant as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is the managing Department.
	I apologise for the state of my voiceI have not been to voice training recently, but I have got the lurgy, so if I suddenly splutter, it is because of that and not for some other reason. Sharpness docks are close to my heart because I used to visit them when I was a child. Some of us can remember the days when people used to go out on Sunday afternoon car trips, and I used to go and watch the ships in Sharpness docks, which might show what a sad life I led as a child. There used to be a lovely ship, the Vindicatrix, in Sharpness docks. It was a training ship, and people who trained on itthe Vindi boysalways have an annual reunion. It still sticks in the memory.
	It might surprise people to hear that my constituency contains docks, because most think that Stroud is somewhere inland near the Cotswolds, but we have long-established docks that are quite important. Sharpness docks is one of three inland waterway terminals still owned by British Waterways, and I contend that it is an important facility that is in need of some investment. The docks stand on the tidal upper reaches of the Severn estuary: the tidal range of up to 10 m is slightly less than at Avonmouth, 17 miles downstream. Ships carrying up to about 3,500 tonnes of cargo regularly pass through the portI am pleased that their number has increased over the past three yearsand it is possible to take some further up the Gloucester and Sharpness canal, which can take ships up to 900 deadweight tonnes, although the canal is mainly used by leisure craft now.
	The river up to Sharpness is one of compulsory pilotage. I am bringing this matter to the attention of the House because of a report undertaken by the pilots which voices concern about the state of the docks. The pilots bring in vessels over 100 deadweight tonnes; they are part of a consortium, the Gloucester Pilots Partnership, which is under contract to Gloucester Harbour Trustees, which is the competent harbour authority. The trustees also provide the navigation aids in the harbour, which extends from the Maisemore and Llanthony weirs at Gloucester to seaward of the Severn road bridges. They provide comprehensive navigation lights cover and an advanced pilot watch radar system to help to guide shipping through the bridges, especially the deep water channelknown as the Shootsunder the second Severn crossing.
	It is estimated that the docks date back to 1827, but it was only towards the end of the 19th century, in 1874, when the new docks opened and the Severn-Wye railway bridge was completed, that the thoroughfare became important for both water and rail transport. The potential use of coal in the forest of Deanone of the reasons for building the railway and opening up the portwas never really realised. None the less, the facility has been important: connected to the Gloucester and Sharpness canal, it has always served its purpose.
	In 1997, the quayside operations of British Waterways were transferred on a 125-year lease to Sharpness Dock Ltd., or SDL, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Victoria group based in Plymouth. The dry dock facility is separately leased to Sharpness Shipyard and Dry Dock Ltd. I wish to express my respect for Mark Gatehouse of SDL, who has seen the docks through a difficult period to the pleasing point at which they appear to be on the up. That is proved by the recent trading position, which shows the tonnage passing through the docks rising from almost 470,000 in 199495 to 1, 235,722 in 200203. Although the tonnage fell slightly last year, we still think that the port is doing quite well.
	The reason for my present concern is a report that I received from Gloucester Harbour Trustees. I pay tribute to those who helped me understand its relevance and prepare this speech, including my old friend Bob Hall, who has been a harbour trustee for many years, Mike Johnson, who helped to edit his notes, and Gary Strickland of SDL. The report highlights the fact that parts of the docks are in a poor state of repair. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to obtain her own copy of the report, but if she cannot, I shall leave one with her. The report shows that the dry dock, and particularly the dolphins and the area where material is loaded and unloaded, is in need of repair.
	I have always believed that the dock has a good future as long as it is invested in. The problem is that there are nearly 6 million of arrears in relation to investment, and I should like progress to be made on how British Waterways can be encouraged to take forward a strategy to bring the docks up to a decent state of repair.
	We must recognise that the report is worthy of action. By chance, before it was publishedalthough I had been given notice that it was in its incubation stageI had my own meeting with BW back in September, where I met several people, including Roy Parker, the freight marketing manager, Stewart Sim, the operations director, and Ian Jarvis, the general manager for the south-west. We had an interesting couple of hours' discussion in which, having agreed that the docks have a future and that we are committed to assuring it, we explored some of the arguments. Bob Hall came along to that meeting. Although we left with a degree of optimism because of the commitment shown by the officials whom we met, that was not the same as being told where the money would come from.
	There are two sides to this. We need to consider not only putting together a funding package to deal with some of the problems in relation to the docks' state of repair, but how to invest in freight use. No one pretends that it is possible to move dramatically from road to water, or from road to water and rail. However, it would be nice to think that the freight grants that are available to other forms of transport could be made available to inland waterways. That is germane not only to Sharpness but to all forms of inland waterway. Because they do not get access to the same level of grant, it is impossible to think about how to change things if and when the opportunity arises. I hope that that can happen at a more general level. It is no less than Sharpness deserves, and it would provide many opportunities to consider what could be achieved with the right level of capital investment and to how to use the revenue stream to move freight about in better and more sustainable ways.
	In concluding my remarks to give my hon. Friend plenty of time to respond, I shall deal briefly with other issues relating to the Sharpness area. We cannot isolate the docks from their hinterland. The people who live there would not think of doing that, and I have no intention of arguing for it. I believe that the docks have a strong future. They are a good facility which, with the right level of capital investment, and with more revenue support, can be turned around to deal with the sort of tonnages of which we believe that they are capable. However, that depends on other factors.
	The B4066 is the road to the docks. It is partly completed but it needs to be fully completed because of heavy vehicles driving through unsuitable areas. My constituents complain to me regularly about that. Again, we could do with a commitment to complete the road. I appreciate that that is subject to extant planning arrangements, but it would be useful to get a Government view about how progress can be made.
	I shall not go into the details about the rail head because they are long and complicated, but we have been talking about trying to get a rail head for the past 10 years. It would act as a catalyst, because there would be a quick way of moving freight to the midlands, with intra-country shipping travelling from the east coast to the west coast, or directly from Spain. Ships bringing phosphates for our agriculture are some of the major users of the port. I want the rail head to be properly evaluated to ascertain how much it will cost. We have not got anywhere yet because the rail freight grant was lost, but I believe that there are still ways of providing a rail head.
	On the negative side, there was the threat of an incinerator, which I strongly oppose. If hon. Members will excuse the pun, I believe that it is on the back burner now. However, the docks could be a potential source of an exciting development in waste. We have a firm, which used to be called Plasmega and has recently been taken over by Tarmac, that undertakes recycling. We want to encourage such industry on to the docks. It is an ideal centre for a waste recycling facility but it needs proper investment. We need to use the docks area appropriately.
	At a time when Sharpness docks has the potential for expansion, we are in the process of examining what we need to do with Berkeley technology centre a few miles around the corner. It has a genuine impact on my constituency, with the potential loss of 1,100 jobs. We are considering an exciting taskforce investigation into how we can use the facility to develop a high-tech park. I should like some link between the docks, where some of the blue-collar work could take place, and the work that could go on in the Berkeley technology centre.
	Other threats could derail matters. As I have said in this place on previous occasions, I have never been in favour of the Severn barrage. It could have a big impact on the docks. We do not seem to be making progress on that. Again, if such issues are being discussed in other places, they should be brought to the forefront of our deliberations about what we want to with the docks in future.
	The docks have a future. They are capable of sustaining a good tonnage. Their facilities need to be repaired and brought up to standard so that they can be used not only now but in future. We need to get the infrastructure issues right and ensure that employment measures on the docks are suitable for the 21st century. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, in liaison with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, will give me some good news that we are serious about using inland waterways. That is not a pious dream but a way of securing a sustainable future.

Charlotte Atkins: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on securing the debate on the future of Sharpness docks. I am delighted that his debate is the first to which I have had an opportunity to respond.
	The speech has highlighted the important role that smaller ports such as Sharpness can play in meeting the needs of business customers and in generating wealth locally and regionally. Although the heaviest traffic flows are concentrated in our biggest ports, providing vital facilities for container and bulk traffic such as oil and coal, there are more than 1,000 ports and terminals throughout the United Kingdom.
	The Government do not run the ports industry. Some ports are run by local authorities, and others operate as independent trusts or are wholly in the private sector; all are run as commercial propositions.
	Let me set out three key tenets of the Government's policy towards ports. We recognise that all ports have the potential to bring significant economic benefit to their hinterland, be it local or regional. We have ensured that the framework is in place to allow ports, large and small, to make the most of the opportunities that the market presents. The Government are firmly committed to encouraging more freight to be carried by water, where that offers the best value for money for our economy, environment and society.
	Sharpness is an excellent example of what makes our ports industry successful. Under the new operator's entrepreneurial approach, traffic has climbed 50 per cent. since 1996, and it has already established itself as the eighth largest port in the south-west region, whose coastline stretches from Gloucester to Poole. Sharpness Docks Ltd has successfully developed its niche business in dry cargo in and out of the west midlands on short sea shipping services.
	I fully understand my hon. Friend's keen interest in supporting the company's efforts to build on this successit would clearly benefit his constituents, the region, and the Government's policy aims. Sharpness is unusual, in that the owner of the site, and the statutory port authority, is British Waterways, a public corporation. As the port authority, British Waterways is required to ensure that the port is fit for purpose and can safely be used by ships and other vessels. However, the maintenance requirements laid down by the Transport Act 1968 apply only to commercial and cruising waterways, and British Waterways is not obliged to maintain Sharpness docks to specified standards, except for the length of the Gloucester and Sharpness canal where it passes through the docks.
	There are many demands on British Waterways' budget, but the Government have been increasing the funding for the corporation. Between 1999 and 2002, British Waterways was allocated an additional 24 million to eliminate its safety backlog over a seven-year period. A further 18 million was provided between 2002 and 2004 to enable it to reduce the backlog even more quickly. In addition, DEFRA has in the past few years given British Waterways a further ring-fenced payment of 30 million for infrastructure improvements to bring the network up to a sufficiently reliable standard to attract new business and opportunities to the waterways.
	The Government and British Waterways clearly recognise the need to invest in Sharpness to repair and upgrade the existing port infrastructure. Indeed, British Waterways has identified a requirement for 4.1 million of remedial work that it would like to undertake over the next four to five years if available funds and priorities permit. This includes work on the tidal basin jetties and entrance locks. In fact, British Waterways is now considering the phasing of this work into its overall maintenance programme. If further proof were needed of British Waterways' commitment to the future development of Sharpness, I would point to the 500,000 already spent in refurbishing the middle lock gates in 200304, and the further 595,000 earmarked for the sea gates in 200607.
	I assure my hon. Friend that British Waterways is committed to keeping the docks open, and, under its ongoing investment programme, it hopes to encourage a continuing increase in freight traffic through the port over the coming years. I am pleased to hear that BW is currently in discussion with Sharpness Docks Ltd to explore how the docks might be used for the movement of waste and recyclable material, and how the port might, once more, become the gateway for traffic on the Gloucester and Sharpness canal. In this context, it is good to see the return of significant quantities of aggregate traffic to the Severn further upstream, between Ripple, Ryan and Gloucester, supported by a 1 million freight facility grant from my Department. This is the first major freight traffic to flow on the Severn for more than 10 years. It will remove 340,000 lorry journeys from Gloucestershire's roads over the next 10 years, and bodes well for the revitalisation of this major UK waterway.
	I also understand that Gloucestershire county council has taken a considerable interest in the future prosperity of Sharpness docks. The county is part of a European Union Atlantic Arc partnership studying the potential for increasing short-sea shipping. We look forward to the outcome of that study later this year.
	The county has also been leading on the re-establishment of the docks railway system through the freight quality partnership and is offering to match-fund this work. That will establish a connection to the metal recycling plant at Sharpness, which has rail-connected sites in the west midlands. Discussions are also in hand with the port operator regarding the potential for rail and with a distribution firm regarding the potential for a rail-connected warehouse. The dockside could include a general purpose rail/road facility.

David Drew: I congratulate my hon. Friend and hope that that will be followed up, because the company is Howard Tenens. I ask that the Department actively pursue it, as there has been some disagreement on the ground for all sorts of obvious reasons. This could be a real key to turning the docks into an even more successful employment, and dare I say development, opportunity.

Charlotte Atkins: I am sure that the Department will look favourably at that, because it is very much in line with our objectives.
	The county council feels that the role of Sharpness as a port was overlooked in the past, as does my hon. Friend, but it clearly believes that Sharpness now offers an exciting opportunity for the county, with tremendous development potential. There is a good supply of employment land and relatively few planning constraints. The local plan has identified 19 hectares of development land, which could probably be easily increased.
	The potential of Sharpness was recognised in the county council's local transport plan with an explicit policy aimed at encouraging the development of water freight at Sharpness dock. Another county policy promotes the creation of rail freight terminals, with Sharpness as one of the possible sites.
	It is clear that Sharpness is in an excellent position to become a tri-modal freight facility for the region. There is a rail connectionmothballed but largely in good order, having been well maintained for nuclear traffic to Berkeley power stationand the Gloucester and Sharpness canal, connecting with the River Severn at Gloucester. It is only a few miles from the M5. I am pleased to report that the county council is making provision in its second local transport plan for funding to improve the road link from the M5 to Sharpness.
	I understand that the county council, through the freight quality partnership, is establishing a project team to drive forward the creation of a tri-modal freight facility at Sharpness. Starting with the dock railway network, the county council will work with Stroud district council, British Waterways, the rail industry, the port operator and other private sector and stakeholder interests at Sharpness to develop and implement the project. The county council sees this as an excellent opportunity to reduce the amount of freight moved by road and to promote the use of rail and waterinland and short-seafor the transport of goods.
	The Department for Transport also recognises the role that Sharpness can play in meeting transport needs in the south-west region and further afield. Sharpness is already well positioned to develop further. It can be reached from the midlands by road without having to negotiate the congestion of the M4 and M5 in the Bristol area. It also has the potential to exploit good-quality rail and even canal access.
	The Government are keen to take freight traffic off congested roads and we support short-sea shipping as a safe, environmentally friendly and sustainable mode of transport. Freight should be carried by water wherever it offers the best value-for-money solution in terms of the economy, society and the environment. The Government will do what they can to help a port such as Sharpness make the most of that potential.
	However, I should make it clear that we believe that port operations and port developments should not rely on public subsidy. Port infrastructure can and should be commercially financed. Port subsidies not only have the potential to distort competition between ports but risk spreading the problems caused by excess capacity. Nevertheless, we undertake to judge each case on its merits, balancing the potential for adverse economic impact against the real social, economic and environmental benefits to be derived.
	Although we have no plans to give British Waterways increased grant aid to enable it to expand its freight activities, infrastructure investment might be supported by freight facility grants to help divert traffic from our roads on to water. Start-up and catalyst funding might also be available from the European Commission's Marco Polo programme, which is the grant regime supporting modal shift away from roads.
	British Waterways remains committed to keeping the port of Sharpness open and the prospects for further traffic growth are good, whether it be more traffic from the west midlands or more locally sourced waste and recyclables using the Gloucester and Sharpness canal. The Government as a whole are committed to taking traffic off the roads and to boosting short-sea shipping, all as part of a sustainable freight policy. That entails ensuring that the Government's ports policy continues to provide the right framework for the sustainable development of our ports, large and small.
	I am sure that my hon. Friend will be delighted to hear that the Department for Transport will work with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and British Waterways to ensure that Sharpness has every opportunity to succeed within the ports policy framework. But, most importantly, we look to port operators such as Sharpness Dock Ltd to make the most of the potential, for the benefit of the port's customers, of the local area and the wider region that it serves.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Eight o'clock.